PDA

View Full Version : KoC Rogues.... What to do....



Mielinski
11th August 2018, 01:23 AM
Your opponent has already suffered heavy losses today, and his sentry force is on full alert. Your sabotage will not succeed until they let their guard down.

Attack Mission
Target: CashLaundry
Total sabbed already today 13,153,000,000

This is why I'm done with this game. 2 rogues vs KoC and 2 rogues will last for a long time because it only takes 5 people to max someone. It's basically 5 vs 2 but the 2 can't be brought down fast.
Seriously KoC admins you are just making this way too easy. Everyone said it before and everyone will keep saying it: you are making it way to easy for someone to go rogue and give them a lot of power.

MFnBonsai
11th August 2018, 02:18 AM
Seriously KoC admins you are just making this way too easy. Everyone said it before and everyone will keep saying it: you are making it way to easy for someone to go rogue and give them a lot of power.

We increased sabotage and everyone complained to where it’s almost where it was before the beta began.... we are currently discussing what to do with massing....

And FYI it’s only a select few that are constantly complaining about rogues.... all up 5 players that’s it.... if there is more I haven’t heard from them....

Mielinski
11th August 2018, 02:52 AM
We increased sabotage and everyone complained to where it’s almost where it was before the beta began.... we are currently discussing what to do with massing....

And FYI it’s only a select few that are constantly complaining about rogues.... all up 5 players that’s it.... if there is more I haven’t heard from them....

It's good you're looking into it. That's what a beta is for. But it's way more than 5 people complaining about the fact that rogues are overpowered. I mean really...do you even believe that yourself? GUA stands for 5% of KoC it's the silent majority that's getting enough of it and will go elsewhere.
It also doesn't make sense that 2 people will cause a huge mayhem on whole KoC and that only 5 people actually can do something in return (sabbing). If they play it out well they can cause trouble till EOA and almost every KoC account.

Then you have the little guys. The rogues with nothing but spy that can sab almost any middle account. I've never seen KoC getting so bullied as of right now. People get pm's to join against bullies and if they don't they get chained. This isn't the worse part but the fact you can't do anything back is what is annoying.

GrowerNotShower
11th August 2018, 02:56 AM
We increased sabotage and everyone complained to where itís almost where it was before the beta began.... we are currently discussing what to do with massing....

And FYI itís only a select few that are constantly complaining about rogues.... all up 5 players thatís it.... if there is more I havenít heard from them....

I dislike rogues...well, more specifically I don't like not being able to sab someone because they are always maxed, but they can sab me every day...I dislike that the game currently incentivizes selling up rather than down. The number of 1m+ tff accounts that are virtually empty because they get demolished so sell up is ridiculous. Many people think the same.

Umbrus
11th August 2018, 03:11 AM
It's good you're looking into it. That's what a beta is for. But it's way more than 5 people complaining about the fact that rogues are overpowered. I mean really...do you even believe that yourself? GUA stands for 5% of KoC it's the silent majority that's getting enough of it and will go elsewhere.
It also doesn't make sense that 2 people will cause a huge mayhem on whole KoC and that only 5 people actually can do something in return (sabbing). If they play it out well they can cause trouble till EOA and almost every KoC account.

Then you have the little guys. The rogues with nothing but spy that can sab almost any middle account. I've never seen KoC getting so bullied as of right now. People get pm's to join against bullies and if they don't they get chained. This isn't the worse part but the fact you can't do anything back is what is annoying.

I agree that it can be frustrating, but this thread is not the place to complain about game mechanics. Post in the suggestions thread or get on Discord/Whatsapp/Facebook/IRC (KoC is finally reachable on most social media) and work with other players and the mods to create a solution. QQing in a random thread is an exercise in futility.

krieper
11th August 2018, 03:31 AM
We increased sabotage and everyone complained to where it’s almost where it was before the beta began.... we are currently discussing what to do with massing....

And FYI it’s only a select few that are constantly complaining about rogues.... all up 5 players that’s it.... if there is more I haven’t heard from them....

Off topic, but he is right. Rogues suck, gameplay in that regards suck.

If you want to know how many complain, ask the bigger alliances. Their bfmods get burried in tears everytime one rogue goes off, let alone multiple ones.

I know, as I was a bfmod for SR in earlier ages. The cries are real, lol.

Stes_The_Destroyer
11th August 2018, 04:24 AM
Off topic, but he is right. Rogues suck, gameplay in that regards suck.

If you want to know how many complain, ask the bigger alliances. Their bfmods get burried in tears everytime one rogue goes off, let alone multiple ones.

I know, as I was a bfmod for SR in earlier ages. The cries are real, lol.

its fooked, i was massed by forces of darkness and rogues the last day/few week, there can mass me and i cant sab 1 single one of them cause maxed, so basically i have to just sit here and take and cant do anything about it, it really sucks i aint complaining about losing stuff, just i cant do anything which sucks, just why put any effort into it when people who are you just sore losers and generally arses in life can just ruin it cause know cant do anything about it.

MFnBonsai
11th August 2018, 04:40 AM
Since I have opened a thread regarding most things happening in KoC lets get one going on this subject....

Now I have sort of tried to bring some chaos back into the game this beta, some dont like it some do, but I really just wanted to shake things up a bit....

Many many ages ago there were different playstyles.... Rankers, sabbers, massers, bankers, slayers, war chains and ofcourse the peaceful ones. Over the years there were changes that removed many different playstyles from the game, war chains left, sabbers left and what was left was rankers that wanted their accounts protected.

Now you might say I am biased but many many ages ago KoC with the playerbase it had was able to sustain all those playstyles quite comfortably until certain changes came into the game that drove certain playstyles away. Now I am not trying to favor one particular playstyle nor am I trying to make the rankers and alliances pay a price by bringing in some new changes. But along with changes comes the issue of overpowering one playstyle over another.

Now before anyone posts anything sabbs costing turns will not be reinstated so do not post asking or saying it has to happen. But lets see if there can be a constructive discussion of how to fix the issue. What I will say is that we did attempt to give everyone the ability to sabb more but that had to be reversed due to the amount of players that did not like the change (what i will say is that atleast I can change things now but dont expect everything to go your way).

I am now with 3 weeks to go looking at what can be done about so called rogues(even though i despise that name). I have a couple things in mind which endtime/ash and I have discussed and will give a try but lets see what you come up with.

edit... I have removed posts from another thread and put them in this thread and seems they are now at the top.... dont blame me havent tried this before lol....

yoshi9nufc-RF
11th August 2018, 04:54 AM
I suggested this in the koc chat not sure if it just got lost in the spam or you didnít like it, but, what about if repairs were directly related to the counter damage done on you rather than being close to random, I know this sort of happens now but small raiders can still cause massive repairs to mains which seems off to me? I think this also helps the slayer situation, as it is, it is impossible to slay these big DAs for profit, Xeros has been getting 200-300m repairs on them which is just too much to make it viable for it to be worth chasing them down.

This way the rogues do less damage when raiding but slayers have a better shot of chasing down these turtle DA whores.

As for sabbing I like that mains can actually damage each other, but the sustainable level is too high as it is, a middle ground between now and the old sabbing seems best, like 10 sabbers a day sabbing 3 times will allow more damage to maxxed accounts but still hurt these bigs when they go at it?

Stes_The_Destroyer
11th August 2018, 04:57 AM
10 sabs person on same target, yes in war a bigger alliance can do more but thats war, if rogues want to sab everyone, then 10 turns will give people chance to retaliate and the rogue gets what he deserves for sabbing everyone.

Umbrus
11th August 2018, 04:58 AM
Increase the amount we can sabotage from a target based on how much they have already sabbed (or on number of sabotage missions) so it looks like this:

Maximum sab damage = base of 5% (or w.e it is now) + an additional 1% for each 100 sabotage missions

Remove the minimum account value protection, allow accounts to be sabbed down to 0 weapons. Under 400 million though make it so that each sabotage can sab a maximum of 1,000,000 at a try.

MFnBonsai
11th August 2018, 05:04 AM
10 sabs person on same target, yes in war a bigger alliance can do more but thats war, if rogues want to sab everyone, then 10 turns will give people chance to retaliate and the rogue gets what he deserves for sabbing everyone.

But who is to determine who is a rogue.... the issue with allowing 10 sabbs per person on the same target is that anyone not just so called rogues can be bullied so yes there does have to be some sort of protection in place....

Stes_The_Destroyer
11th August 2018, 05:10 AM
ok...

i just want to beable to retaliate on people who sabbed me, it just doesnt seem fair that there can sab me and i cant back.

maybe some code to have a limit on what can be sabbed per person and if there have sabbed you that releases you to sab them, or if there sab so much of you, you can sab that much back lol. i aint no coder or expert, just i want to get some revenge lol

daz1409
11th August 2018, 05:17 AM
Couple of quick ideas:

Change damages to reflect ratio of SA to DA

Change current SA required to attack/raid someone. 1:100 is what causes most issues. Someone can play all age and someone can build the SA to cause billions of damage in just a day.

Reduce covert losses - atm even as undead raiding kills tffs massively - even with a massive gap in SA-DA

Make raiding less appealing - increase turn costs and make it only get exp if successful. Means people have to be careful with turn numbers or actually grow some SA if they want to get exp from it.

If I think of more I'll add.

Kaya
11th August 2018, 05:18 AM
Yes I think if they want to play the sab game then yes they should be able to be stabbed back and raiding won't work on them cos they r small accs wanting to do damage and not for glory ...way it is now bigger alliances can hire them to do the dirty work for them so very frustrating when you get sabbed and have to take and can't fight back lol like is that fair

Jankster
11th August 2018, 05:28 AM
It should be allowed to sab those who sab you in return.
Still the max thingy should be the same if you sab first.

Raid ratio should be set much higher than 1:100, it would mean that a raider got to have higher SA and proberly can be sabbed.

MFnBonsai
11th August 2018, 05:32 AM
Well there are 2 issues....

1. Sabbers being maxed but still able to sabb without consequence (we did increase covert and tool loss on attempts)

2. Massers able to do costly damage to those they mass

So give me some ideas on those 2 issues. Lets not make it about what alliance is doing what to who. We all want to see some sort of balance so lets see what can come of this thread.

daz1409
11th August 2018, 05:35 AM
How about limit sabs per day based on a % of your own account value as well?

Means both alliances in wars and rogues will both have to plan better how and who they sab, and maybe not even sab full aat.

Or, if you are maxed you can only sab a % of someone's aat rather than a full aat?

ROTTENSOUL
11th August 2018, 05:50 AM
It should be allowed to sab those who sab you in return.
Still the max thingy should be the same if you sab first.


I think this idea deserves some attention because it might give some needed balance and it seems like a fair solution to me.

If you sab 500 people those 500 people could sab you in return and likely destroy your account.. Sab caps could stay as they are now and the "rogue" can easily build up spy and go on another big sabrun within a few days. On the days the rogue isn't sabbing he can easily build up again with low losses, even when maxed but he won't be able to inflict enormous damage every day but the rogue can still inflict a lot more damage than he takes.

Stes_The_Destroyer
11th August 2018, 05:54 AM
that isnt a bad thing, if there can recover in a few days to do it again you can build, at the minuute there do it daily and take as much as can build a day, would balance it out a bit more and you would beable to out grow the smaller rogues in some way

MFnBonsai
11th August 2018, 05:57 AM
How about limit sabs per day based on a % of your own account value as well?

Means both alliances in wars and rogues will both have to plan better how and who they sab, and maybe not even sab full aat.

Or, if you are maxed you can only sab a % of someone's aat rather than a full aat?

limiting sabbs per day would be the same as limiting players sabbin via having sabb turns reintroduced.... really I am not one for adding too many more limits to the game....

Mielinski
11th August 2018, 06:05 AM
Thank you Bon for creating this topic and giving the necessary attention to this subject.

There are indeed 2 factors:

1) The SA/DA ratio needs to be looked into. 1:100 is way off and gives raiders a huge advantage against accounts with a big DA who have huge repairs and losses. Simply put: one can build an account now and in just a few days he can raid any big, do lots of damage and nearly has any damage himself + doesn't need to spend any time to maintain this. The vulnerability of the bigger accounts is out of proportion in this matter.

2) Every mid sized account probably has had a new rogue on him every 2 weeks or more. The rogue is full of spy, is always maxed and you can only boost so much sentry so you finally outgrow him. A few days later a bigger one is already sabbing you and you're back at start. Many players just lost hope and don't want to play a game where they lose more gold than they make in a day and can't anything back at the agressor.
A good suggestion I red is:
a) you can sab back anyone who sabs you (if you have the spy for it of course - this brings in a nice aspect of cooperation in this game)
b) no more limit on weapons loss

Take the extreme case of Shasta going rogue on whole KoC and being protected by the games mechanism that he can only be sabbed by 5 different people and with this kind of weapons loss he will keep doing this for a long time (he cannot be taken down only like a handful of people will escape him and it will cost a lot of sacrifice). While he has every reason to do this, he should be able to be destroyed completely if he decides to take this risk.

Covert loss is too much as well. It should only be significant if the offender can beat the DA.

Thank you!

kaoz
11th August 2018, 06:34 AM
It's much better the way it is for smaller alliances and fair justice for solo players getting bullied > approved > destroyed > rage quit basically.

Sure, many people in larger chains with a pretty account would like to see a minimum of damage/repair costs from the taxman.

Karina
11th August 2018, 07:05 AM
The way I see it, the problem started when sabbing was changed and it became a free for all and now we have sab limits. This caused players to change their style and start to raid, because this is slowly becoming a game of rankers instead of a game with chaos. Sentry right now, USELESS for everyone but bigs. Sabbing, while somewhat effective, people get maxed quickly and it can be frustrating. Raiding, this is as damaging to the raider as it is to the raidee. As someone who has raided, I take enormous damage. While the person I am raiding does too, they have TBG to sustain, I don't. I have to find gold in a battlefield where gold is limited. For me, the issue IS that people are maxed. But there was an age, (age 6 or 7) where you could completely destroy an account in 1 day thanks to the changes made. Ever since then, it seems the changes have been more to mitigate damage against all of the castles and protect them. What's the alternative?
Why not go back to basics? Sometimes all of this change is bad and there simply needs to be stability. Why not go back to making Spy/Sentry unsabbable? I'm sure most people will resist, but so much complaining about crap already is getting tedious. It will make sentry actually worth having. In order to sustain a "spy only" account, person still needs to have TBG, still needs to farm and therefore will still need to hold other sabbable items or be destroyed. But make ALL of the other weapons sabbable. Keep ratio as it is, keep tool loss as it is. But open it up to sab all other tools.
As for raiding, I don't see a change is needed to be honest. Not yet, as I said, too many changes are bad. I take extensive damage and you can look at my logs to see for yourself how much damage I take raiding. How much my losses are and how long it takes me to recover. But with limited turns, I have to be careful and have good turn management to sustain an account that is not just meant to raid and sab, but meant to attack as well. This game is meant to do all of those things, otherwise there would not be any buttons to raid/sab/attack.

~mini~
11th August 2018, 07:14 AM
I am another who would like to see the max sabs protection gotten rid of. All accounts should be able to loose all their weapons.
Keep the max times you can sab an account a day. If 1 person sabs you, you can sustain it, if 20 accounts sab you, your going to have big loses.

would hinder "rouges" and allow the game to be more alliance based.

LinguiniFresh
11th August 2018, 07:36 AM
It's a lot of work sabbing this many people. Props to those with some big sabs!


Sabotage on You
Lost Last 24 Hours: 13,153,000,000 Gold

Just getting bullied today :(

Mielinski
11th August 2018, 07:55 AM
Raiding, this is as damaging to the raider as it is to the raidee. As someone who has raided, I take enormous damage. While the person I am raiding does too, they have TBG to sustain, I don't.
Your account is an example of what is wrong with this game this beta. Don't even begin comparing your repairs with the bigs you are raiding. You can easily hit several people as well to repair.

You just want to give maximum damage to others while you can't be taken down and imo an account like yours is an obvious mistake to this game and a reason why so many people are tired playing. Not because they can't handle the damage but because they can't do anything back.

This isn't about 'protecting' the solo players.

LinguiniFresh
11th August 2018, 08:14 AM
Your account is an example of what is wrong with this game this beta. Don't even begin comparing your repairs with the bigs you are raiding. You can easily hit several people as well to repair.

You just want to give maximum damage to others while you can't be taken down and imo an account like yours is an obvious mistake to this game and a reason why so many people are tired playing. Not because they can't handle the damage but because they can't do anything back.

This isn't about 'protecting' the solo players.

Isn't that what a lot of people want to do? If you want do do damage back you can hit the Raid button 10x aday.

Raids are much more powerful this age. They cost 20% of what they used to turn wise. Casualties are doubled on Undead from prior ages (see how much TFF Lance is down? He would have DM TFF if it wasn't for the war raids)

MFnBonsai
11th August 2018, 08:53 AM
I am another who would like to see the max sabs protection gotten rid of. All accounts should be able to loose all their weapons.
Keep the max times you can sab an account a day. If 1 person sabs you, you can sustain it, if 20 accounts sab you, your going to have big loses.

would hinder "rouges" and allow the game to be more alliance based.

be careful what you wish for.... while being able to destroy a small account because it is a rogue a big alliance could destroy mains in any alliance and basically reduce them to nothing.... imagine SR jumping TGF while she is asleep or out walking or at the shops.... big account one minute reduced to shit if there is enough accounts to take her down....

the above is just to prove a point.... you all dont realize what you want to do to rogues can also be done to big accounts....

LinguiniFresh
11th August 2018, 09:17 AM
Exactly. A lot of people think they can play however they want and not be penalized. Said people think they can play poorly or do something silly like stack DA and have no consequences. In a war game too

My account won't fall today but it will fall

krieper
11th August 2018, 10:25 AM
I think the "eye for an eye" idea is something to try:

In general, you can only get x (5 now, i guess 10 would be better) sabbers on someone.

However, sab over x times a day (I wouldn't make this number too high) and everyone you have sabbed or raided can sab you as well, capped to x (make this high).

The_Sovereign
11th August 2018, 11:13 AM
This thread could easily turn into an over-reaction thread. A lot of people pissed they spent most of the age ranking, now they take two sabs and they are raging.

~mini~
11th August 2018, 11:17 AM
be careful what you wish for.... while being able to destroy a small account because it is a rogue a big alliance could destroy mains in any alliance and basically reduce them to nothing.... imagine SR jumping TGF while she is asleep or out walking or at the shops.... big account one minute reduced to shit if there is enough accounts to take her down....

the above is just to prove a point.... you all dont realize what you want to do to rogues can also be done to big accounts....

If a main account doesn't have sentry, then thats their problem.

I dont know the % of how much spy you need compared with their sentry at the moment, but if somthing like you need 90% spy of their sentry then only those with massive spy can hit the main anyway.

Jankster
11th August 2018, 11:33 AM
This thread could easily turn into an over-reaction thread. A lot of people pissed they spent most of the age ranking, now they take two sabs and they are raging.

Nahh Sovereign, It have been an ongoing unfair trend since swineherd sabbed all koc in many months in a long gone age.(yep it had also covered me in wartimes this maxed thingy)Problem is you get sabbed and cant return the favor.

MFnBonsai
11th August 2018, 11:33 AM
This thread could easily turn into an over-reaction thread. A lot of people pissed they spent most of the age ranking, now they take two sabs and they are raging.

its coming to the end of the age.... what usually happens at the end of the age? Chaos.... accounts sell off and start to try and stop other alliances from winning the game.... this age is a bit different with a few changes that have been made but its still what happens towards the end of the age....

_RoGuEsHaDoW_
11th August 2018, 12:40 PM
its fooked, i was massed by forces of darkness and rogues the last day/few week, there can mass me and i cant sab 1 single one of them cause maxed, so basically i have to just sit here and take and cant do anything about it, it really sucks i aint complaining about losing stuff, just i cant do anything which sucks, just why put any effort into it when people who are you just sore losers and generally arses in life can just ruin it cause know cant do anything about it.

Glad we can be of service :<3:

I love rogues, lets make them more powerful.

The_Sovereign
11th August 2018, 01:24 PM
Glad we can be of service :<3:

I love rogues, lets make them more powerful.

Perhaps if you are "roguing" you should be sabbing your old allies. Because if not, then it's not really roguing and more like sabbing with an agenda. Wonder what that agenda might be?

Hmm...really makes you think.

LordCounter
11th August 2018, 02:57 PM
Well there are 2 issues....

1. Sabbers being maxed but still able to sabb without consequence (we did increase covert and tool loss on attempts)

2. Massers able to do costly damage to those they mass

So give me some ideas on those 2 issues. Lets not make it about what alliance is doing what to who. We all want to see some sort of balance so lets see what can come of this thread.

You could increase the covert losses more, and maybe adjust the damage ratio when a big SA is raiding a small DA. You might not be able to sab the rogue back, but you can take his coverts. I know you already lose a lot of coverts at the moment, but that's just a matter of clicking more. And you add an advantage that there's a little more strategy into the game. Rankers might not want to hold all their tools to save TBG, and rogues can decide to lay low for a while and not buy coverts (and won't be able to sab), or buy DA to protect the coverts (increased AAT).

and about the second point, i've never really been a big fan of taking down mains. It's fun and all but mains usually quit the game because they spend 18 hours a day for months and see it all disappear in weeks. Lower the damages, increase covert loss. Lost soldiers can be replaced by clicking, so might be an activity boost as well.

Darth
11th August 2018, 03:37 PM
I think the second best solution would be a sab-back option. If the person is maxed, you can't sab back a full 20 turns, but maybe 5. That would terribly complicate war, though.

I noticed that I wasn't among the "5 people at most" that complained about this before, despite complaining about this before (http://www.giveupalready.com/showthread.php?97813-NEW-AGE-CHANGES-AGE-23-5-BETA&p=1500409&viewfull=1#post1500409). I guess it doesn't count unless I state it categorically thus: Rogues are a problem, they make the game less fun, they are difficult to deal with and we should be able to do something about it.

The mods yell at me every time I bring it up, but making sabs cost turns again fixes this easily and painlessly. You couldn't fully sab more than 72 people per day if that were the case, and much less if you wanted to slay a little to get your money back. I look forward to the rest of my post now being ignored while I get yelled at for bringing that back up. TBH I still don't understand why the mods are so diametrically opposed to the idea. You can get rid of fake sabbing merely by making XP tied to actual sab damage, after all.

Brandonito
11th August 2018, 03:42 PM
This post is going to cover not only 'rogues' but warring in general as well. Any changes that have to do with rogues will also effect general koc warfare and therefore both aspects should be considered in any changes made.

The ability for any player to 'go rogue' is important. Alliances working together to hurt individual players with individual players having no protection is NOT something I or anybody else should be looking for. Everything needs a balance. Right now the balance between alliances vs rogues is simply skewed heavily in favor of rogues/griefers hiding behind the 'maxed' mechanic. We need to implement rules that reduce the power of rogues while implementing ideas that still protect their ability to protect their play style.

Warfare currently has the following problems:

Sentry is worthless.
Because maxing somebody is only 5% per 24 hours now, it only takes 5 people to max somebody. Other than an alliances top accounts, everybody easily gets maxed. There used to be mid-accounts that still had sentry, but now it's pointless. As long as 5 people can sab you daily you might as well have 0 sentry and just use the maxed mechanic to protect yourself.

It's too easy to play a 'kamikaze' account.
You can only lose 5% of your account per day to sabs, so why not just go elf, put 99% of your account into spy (sentry is worthless after all) and just rely on the game only allowing you to lose 5% of your account as your protection? There's strategy here, but it's too strong. Being 'maxed' is supposed to be a last resort protection so your account isn't instantly zeroed out, the way it's used now it feels like abuse.

Not very many people can get involved.
Because maxing only allows 5 people to sab someone in a day, the majority of your alliance just sits on their account and is unable to participate in the war. Yes, they can raid, but that's only one part of warfare and limits people's playstyle. We should have a system that encourages alliances to get MORE people involved in the war and help out, not one that encourages only a handful to do so.

There is very little strategy involved, just time consuming actions.
All I do during war is mindlessly sab all the way down the war list. There's no downside to me sabbing somebody small and no protection for them against me. There needs to be more strategy to: "should I sab this person?" rather than "do I have time to sab this person?"

Selling up is the only viable strategy.
Again, because it only takes 5 people to max somebody in a day, there's no point in having 20+ people with good spy. The mid and low accounts might as well just sell up to a stronger account for either sentry or more spy. While this is fine because it's strategy - keep in mind people often go inactive/quit the game after they sell off a few months in to an age. It's no fun to be a mid-account and feel like your entire account is useless in a war and the only decent way you can participate is to sell up to somebody else after you worked hard to build yourself up. I think the game is more fun when the strong strategies favor more people getting involved, not less.

Dealing with rogues currently have the following problems:

It's frustrating to get raided or sabbed only to find out you can't retaliate due to them being maxed.
I can't emphasize this more. It's the worst feeling in the world while playing koc to find someone screwing with you - but to have no way of retaliating back. Seriously. It sucks.

Kamikaze rogue strategies are too powerful.
Basically the same as what I mentioned in the warfare section. Rogues can invest 99% of their account in to spy, go elf, and sab as many people as they want while using the max armory loss as their protection. Big accouts will lose the rogues quickly, but mid-accounts/slayers who have to build SA/spy as their primary source of income can never deal with a rogue who just wants to go 100% spy and screw with people. At a cost of 0 turns, so they can sab all of koc and only 5 people can sab them back.

Rogues go after all of koc rather than an alliance they're having an issue with.
One of the most common arguments that rogues should be powerful is that an alliance creates these rogues by being bullies or doing something unfair/stupid. This age, however, since sabbing costing turns was removed almost everybody who went 'rogue' went after everybody in koc just for fun. And why not? If they go after 1 alliance they're maxed anyways, so why shouldn't they go after everybody else? There's nothing they can do about it and it leads back to that frustrating situation where you can't retaliate on someone screwing with you for no reason. And they can do it all at a cost of 0 turns, so they can easily use their turns to replenish any losses. People aren't 'roguing' to protect themselves, they're doing it to cause grief to koc which makes people quit the game because they feel bullied for no reason and they feel that the game protects them.

'Griefers' who play only to raid people with DA have to put in very little effort to maintain a small account that can deal insane amounts of damage.
Every age there's always a few people who create an account just to raid anybody who builds DA. Not because of any issue or grudge, but because it's so easy to do. This deals an extraordinary amount of damage and requires less than 5 minutes a day of effort. And you get to 'grief' the top players who can do nothing to protect themselves from it. I myself have done this one age when I didn't feel like playing. You should either have to put in more effort to maintain a higher SA to damage these people, or the damage should scale (i.e. low SA raids should do way less damage, high SA raids should do way more damage).

Suggested changes:

1) Increase the maximum armory inventory loss from 5% to 15% per day.
This alleviates a lot of problems by itself. At the very least, even if none of the other changes I mention happen, I think this one needs to happen. All of the sudden it takes 15 people to max someone instead of 5. This encourages you to get more people involved in sabbing during a war. This encourages mid-accounts to exist and not sell off because you need more people with high spy involved in a war. This encourages people to build some sentry, because if they allow 15 people to sab them daily they're going to lose a huge amount. This stops kamikaze rogues from maintaining such a high spy that can never be outgrown because they can lose a lot more daily if they don't invest some of their account into sentry. This makes it harder for griefers to maintain their SA while raiding. Someone who gets raided/sabbed by someone will be less likely to see the frustrating "this guy is maxed" message and more likely to cause some pain back. All of these things are good for the game.

2) You can't sabotage someone with less than 10% of your account value unless they have raided, sabotaged, or attacked you in the last 24 hours.
This is to stop bullying in general. Main accounts also shouldn't be able to just mindlessly be able to sab down the war list. I'm sure as a small account it's frustrating to see main accounts sab you daily when you have no chance to outgrow them. Small accounts should have some protections vs. big accounts. This number should maybe even be bigger, like 20-25%. It'd be nice for big accounts to fight big accounts and small accounts to fight small accounts in a war rather than big accounts being all-powerful.

3) You can sabotage someone regardless of them being maxed (if you have enough spy) if they've raided or sabotaged you in the last 24 hours.
This one is the most controversial/game changer change. Just for clarification - your sab will still count towards them being maxed - but if they're already maxed it will still allow you to sab. Something has to give if sabotaging isn't going to be limited by costing turns. It needs a downside to sabbing everybody in koc for free. The covert/weapon loss 'increase' that was made this age is still negligible. This needs to happen for 2 more reasons. First, it literally drives people away from the game to constantly have to deal with rogues who can sab/raid them, but they can't retaliate. I can't emphasize enough how important this is. Two, it stops people from abusing the logic of "I'm maxed anyways so I might as well sab all alliances because there's nothing they can do about it".

This will also make thought/strategy during war more powerful. If you want to go kamikaze spy with no sentry, then you have to limit the # of people you sab because they will be able to retaliate potentially after you're already maxed. Or you can go a decent amount of spy and keep sentry to stop these people from being able to sab you.

4) Make repair cost damage a product of SA : DA ratio.
It makes no sense that 1b SA raiding 100b DA can deal almost as much repair cost damage as 100b SA raiding 100b DA. The formula for covert losses is good in this regard, low SA kills very few coverts - but the formula for repair costs is not. Smaller players would also have protection from suggested change #2 from getting bullied - so this is specifically targeting players who just want to grief others.

5) Increase the SA requirement to raid somebody from 1:100 to 1:20.
Not super necessary if the above idea gets implemented - but it's an easy change and I see no reason people shouldn't have to work just a *little* bit harder to raid considering how easy it is to do right now. 1:20 is still very easy to reach.

6) Increase the cost of a raid from 5 turns to 15.
Raids are too cheap at the cost of 5 turns. Raid covert damage was doubled when undead/elf covert losses were nerfed by half, and with 2x income per soldier we now have 2x as many covert tools. This leaves us with 4x higher covert losses as compared to before during war. Raids are perhaps a little too strong now, and this is just a minor nerf so they don't become too strong.



Sorry, this post got a bit long. Basically, I think the fact that people have a maximum amount of armory they can lose per day is a great thing for the game. It stops people from getting zeroed out over night, and helps individuals fight big alliances more easily. Unfortunately, I also think it gets abused by a lot of people and protects people who only want to cause grief to large amounts of people while hiding behind the being maxed mechanic. I think the above changes will stop this abuse by 'rogues' and be a positive change for the game.

Rudden
11th August 2018, 04:00 PM
This post is going to cover not only 'rogues' but warring in general as well. Any changes that have to do with rogues will also effect general koc warfare and therefore both aspects should be considered in any changes made.

The ability for any player to 'go rogue' is important. Alliances working together to hurt individual players with individual players having no protection is NOT something I or anybody else should be looking for. Everything needs a balance. Right now the balance between alliances vs rogues is simply skewed heavily in favor of rogues/griefers hiding behind the 'maxed' mechanic. We need to implement rules that reduce the power of rogues while implementing ideas that still protect their ability to protect their play style.

Warfare currently has the following problems:

Sentry is worthless.
Because maxing somebody is only 5% per 24 hours now, it only takes 5 people to max somebody. Other than an alliances top accounts, everybody easily gets maxed. There used to be mid-accounts that still had sentry, but now it's pointless. As long as 5 people can sab you daily you might as well have 0 sentry and just use the maxed mechanic to protect yourself.

It's too easy to play a 'kamikaze' account.
You can only lose 5% of your account per day to sabs, so why not just go elf, put 99% of your account into spy (sentry is worthless after all) and just rely on the game only allowing you to lose 5% of your account as your protection? There's strategy here, but it's too strong. Being 'maxed' is supposed to be a last resort protection so your account isn't instantly zeroed out, the way it's used now it feels like abuse.

Not very many people can get involved.
Because maxing only allows 5 people to sab someone in a day, the majority of your alliance just sits on their account and is unable to participate in the war. Yes, they can raid, but that's only one part of warfare and limits people's playstyle. We should have a system that encourages alliances to get MORE people involved in the war and help out, not one that encourages only a handful to do so.

There is very little strategy involved, just time consuming actions.
All I do during war is mindlessly sab all the way down the war list. There's no downside to me sabbing somebody small and no protection for them against me. There needs to be more strategy to: "should I sab this person?" rather than "do I have time to sab this person?"

Selling up is the only viable strategy.
Again, because it only takes 5 people to max somebody in a day, there's no point in having 20+ people with good spy. The mid and low accounts might as well just sell up to a stronger account for either sentry or more spy. While this is fine because it's strategy - keep in mind people often go inactive/quit the game after they sell off a few months in to an age. It's no fun to be a mid-account and feel like your entire account is useless in a war and the only decent way you can participate is to sell up to somebody else after you worked hard to build yourself up. I think the game is more fun when the strong strategies favor more people getting involved, not less.

Dealing with rogues currently have the following problems:

It's frustrating to get raided or sabbed only to find out you can't retaliate due to them being maxed.
I can't emphasize this more. It's the worst feeling in the world while playing koc to find someone screwing with you - but to have no way of retaliating back. Seriously. It sucks.

Kamikaze rogue strategies are too powerful.
Basically the same as what I mentioned in the warfare section. Rogues can invest 99% of their account in to spy, go elf, and sab as many people as they want while using the max armory loss as their protection. Big accouts will lose the rogues quickly, but mid-accounts/slayers who have to build SA/spy as their primary source of income can never deal with a rogue who just wants to go 100% spy and screw with people. At a cost of 0 turns, so they can sab all of koc and only 5 people can sab them back.

Rogues go after all of koc rather than an alliance they're having an issue with.
One of the most common arguments that rogues should be powerful is that an alliance creates these rogues by being bullies or doing something unfair/stupid. This age, however, since sabbing costing turns was removed almost everybody who went 'rogue' went after everybody in koc just for fun. And why not? If they go after 1 alliance they're maxed anyways, so why shouldn't they go after everybody else? There's nothing they can do about it and it leads back to that frustrating situation where you can't retaliate on someone screwing with you for no reason. And they can do it all at a cost of 0 turns, so they can easily use their turns to replenish any losses. People aren't 'roguing' to protect themselves, they're doing it to cause grief to koc which makes people quit the game because they feel bullied for no reason and they feel that the game protects them.

'Griefers' who play only to raid people with DA have to put in very little effort to maintain a small account that can deal insane amounts of damage.
Every age there's always a few people who create an account just to raid anybody who builds DA. Not because of any issue or grudge, but because it's so easy to do. This deals an extraordinary amount of damage and requires less than 5 minutes a day of effort. And you get to 'grief' the top players who can do nothing to protect themselves from it. I myself have done this one age when I didn't feel like playing. You should either have to put in more effort to maintain a higher SA to damage these people, or the damage should scale (i.e. low SA raids should do way less damage, high SA raids should do way more damage).

Suggested changes:

1) Increase the maximum armory inventory loss from 5% to 15% per day.
This alleviates a lot of problems by itself. At the very least, even if none of the other changes I mention happen, I think this one needs to happen. All of the sudden it takes 15 people to max someone instead of 5. This encourages you to get more people involved in sabbing during a war. This encourages mid-accounts to exist and not sell off because you need more people with high spy involved in a war. This encourages people to build some sentry, because if they allow 15 people to sab them daily they're going to lose a huge amount. This stops kamikaze rogues from maintaining such a high spy that can never be outgrown because they can lose a lot more daily if they don't invest some of their account into sentry. This makes it harder for griefers to maintain their SA while raiding. Someone who gets raided/sabbed by someone will be less likely to see the frustrating "this guy is maxed" message and more likely to cause some pain back. All of things are good for the game.

2) You can't sabotage someone with less than 10% of your account value unless they have raided, sabotaged, or attacked you in the last 24 hours.
This is to stop bullying in general. Main accounts also shouldn't be able to just mindlessly be able to sab down the war list. I'm sure as a small account it's frustrating to see main accounts sab you daily when you have no chance to outgrow them. Small accounts should have some protections vs. big accounts. This number should maybe even be bigger, like 20-25%. It'd be nice for big accounts to fight big accounts and small accounts to fight small accounts in a war rather than big accounts being all-powerful.

3) You can sabotage someone regardless of them being maxed (if you have enough spy) if they've raided or sabotaged you in the last 24 hours.
This one is the most controversial/game changer change. Just for clarification - your sab will still count towards them being maxed - but if they're already maxed it will still allow you to sab. Something has to give if sabotaging isn't going to be limited by costing turns. It needs a downside to sabbing everybody in koc for free. The covert/weapon loss 'increase' that was made this age is still negligible. This needs to happen for 2 more reasons. First, it literally drives people away from the game to constantly have to deal with rogues who can sab/raid them, but they can't retaliate. I can't emphasize enough how important this is. Two, it stops people from abusing the logic of "I'm maxed anyways so I might as well sab all alliances because there's nothing they can do about it".

This will also make thought/strategy during war more powerful. If you want to go kamikaze spy with no sentry, then you have to limit the # of people you sab because they will be able to retaliate potentially after you're already maxed. Or you can go a decent amount of spy and keep sentry to stop these people from being able to sab you.

4) Make repair cost damage a product of SA : DA ratio.
It makes no sense that 1b SA raiding 100b DA can deal almost as much repair cost damage as 100b SA raiding 100b DA. The formula for covert losses is good in this regard, low SA kills very few coverts - but the formula for repair costs is not. Smaller players would also have protection from suggested change #2 from getting bullied - so this is specifically targeting players who just want to grief others.

5) Increase the SA requirement to raid somebody from 1:100 to 1:20.
Not super necessary if the above idea gets implemented - but it's an easy change and I see no reason people shouldn't have to work just a *little* bit harder to raid considering how easy it is to do right now. 1:20 is still very easy to reach.

6) Increase the cost of a raid from 5 turns to 15.
Raids are too cheap at the cost of 5 turns. Raid covert damage was doubled when undead/elf covert losses were nerfed by half, and with 2x income per soldier we now have 2x as many covert tools. This leaves us with 4x higher covert losses as compared to before during war. Raids are perhaps a little too strong now, and this is just a minor nerf so they don't become too strong.



Sorry, this post got a bit long. Basically, I think the fact that people have a maximum amount of armory they can lose per day is a great thing for the game. It stops people from getting zeroed out over night, and helps individuals fight big alliances more easily. Unfortunately, I also think it gets abused by a lot of people and protects people who only want to cause grief to large amounts of people while hiding behind the being maxed mechanic. I think the above changes will stop this abuse by 'rogues' and be a positive change for the game.

Completely agree with the above, making the game have some additional strategy will be an improvement to the experience

krieper
11th August 2018, 05:16 PM
This post is going to cover not only 'rogues' but warring in general as well. Any changes that have to do with rogues will also effect general koc warfare and therefore both aspects should be considered in any changes made.

The ability for any player to 'go rogue' is important. Alliances working together to hurt individual players with individual players having no protection is NOT something I or anybody else should be looking for. Everything needs a balance. Right now the balance between alliances vs rogues is simply skewed heavily in favor of rogues/griefers hiding behind the 'maxed' mechanic. We need to implement rules that reduce the power of rogues while implementing ideas that still protect their ability to protect their play style.

Warfare currently has the following problems:

Sentry is worthless.
Because maxing somebody is only 5% per 24 hours now, it only takes 5 people to max somebody. Other than an alliances top accounts, everybody easily gets maxed. There used to be mid-accounts that still had sentry, but now it's pointless. As long as 5 people can sab you daily you might as well have 0 sentry and just use the maxed mechanic to protect yourself.

It's too easy to play a 'kamikaze' account.
You can only lose 5% of your account per day to sabs, so why not just go elf, put 99% of your account into spy (sentry is worthless after all) and just rely on the game only allowing you to lose 5% of your account as your protection? There's strategy here, but it's too strong. Being 'maxed' is supposed to be a last resort protection so your account isn't instantly zeroed out, the way it's used now it feels like abuse.

Not very many people can get involved.
Because maxing only allows 5 people to sab someone in a day, the majority of your alliance just sits on their account and is unable to participate in the war. Yes, they can raid, but that's only one part of warfare and limits people's playstyle. We should have a system that encourages alliances to get MORE people involved in the war and help out, not one that encourages only a handful to do so.

There is very little strategy involved, just time consuming actions.
All I do during war is mindlessly sab all the way down the war list. There's no downside to me sabbing somebody small and no protection for them against me. There needs to be more strategy to: "should I sab this person?" rather than "do I have time to sab this person?"

Selling up is the only viable strategy.
Again, because it only takes 5 people to max somebody in a day, there's no point in having 20+ people with good spy. The mid and low accounts might as well just sell up to a stronger account for either sentry or more spy. While this is fine because it's strategy - keep in mind people often go inactive/quit the game after they sell off a few months in to an age. It's no fun to be a mid-account and feel like your entire account is useless in a war and the only decent way you can participate is to sell up to somebody else after you worked hard to build yourself up. I think the game is more fun when the strong strategies favor more people getting involved, not less.

Dealing with rogues currently have the following problems:

It's frustrating to get raided or sabbed only to find out you can't retaliate due to them being maxed.
I can't emphasize this more. It's the worst feeling in the world while playing koc to find someone screwing with you - but to have no way of retaliating back. Seriously. It sucks.

Kamikaze rogue strategies are too powerful.
Basically the same as what I mentioned in the warfare section. Rogues can invest 99% of their account in to spy, go elf, and sab as many people as they want while using the max armory loss as their protection. Big accouts will lose the rogues quickly, but mid-accounts/slayers who have to build SA/spy as their primary source of income can never deal with a rogue who just wants to go 100% spy and screw with people. At a cost of 0 turns, so they can sab all of koc and only 5 people can sab them back.

Rogues go after all of koc rather than an alliance they're having an issue with.
One of the most common arguments that rogues should be powerful is that an alliance creates these rogues by being bullies or doing something unfair/stupid. This age, however, since sabbing costing turns was removed almost everybody who went 'rogue' went after everybody in koc just for fun. And why not? If they go after 1 alliance they're maxed anyways, so why shouldn't they go after everybody else? There's nothing they can do about it and it leads back to that frustrating situation where you can't retaliate on someone screwing with you for no reason. And they can do it all at a cost of 0 turns, so they can easily use their turns to replenish any losses. People aren't 'roguing' to protect themselves, they're doing it to cause grief to koc which makes people quit the game because they feel bullied for no reason and they feel that the game protects them.

'Griefers' who play only to raid people with DA have to put in very little effort to maintain a small account that can deal insane amounts of damage.
Every age there's always a few people who create an account just to raid anybody who builds DA. Not because of any issue or grudge, but because it's so easy to do. This deals an extraordinary amount of damage and requires less than 5 minutes a day of effort. And you get to 'grief' the top players who can do nothing to protect themselves from it. I myself have done this one age when I didn't feel like playing. You should either have to put in more effort to maintain a higher SA to damage these people, or the damage should scale (i.e. low SA raids should do way less damage, high SA raids should do way more damage).

Suggested changes:

1) Increase the maximum armory inventory loss from 5% to 15% per day.
This alleviates a lot of problems by itself. At the very least, even if none of the other changes I mention happen, I think this one needs to happen. All of the sudden it takes 15 people to max someone instead of 5. This encourages you to get more people involved in sabbing during a war. This encourages mid-accounts to exist and not sell off because you need more people with high spy involved in a war. This encourages people to build some sentry, because if they allow 15 people to sab them daily they're going to lose a huge amount. This stops kamikaze rogues from maintaining such a high spy that can never be outgrown because they can lose a lot more daily if they don't invest some of their account into sentry. This makes it harder for griefers to maintain their SA while raiding. Someone who gets raided/sabbed by someone will be less likely to see the frustrating "this guy is maxed" message and more likely to cause some pain back. All of things are good for the game.

2) You can't sabotage someone with less than 10% of your account value unless they have raided, sabotaged, or attacked you in the last 24 hours.
This is to stop bullying in general. Main accounts also shouldn't be able to just mindlessly be able to sab down the war list. I'm sure as a small account it's frustrating to see main accounts sab you daily when you have no chance to outgrow them. Small accounts should have some protections vs. big accounts. This number should maybe even be bigger, like 20-25%. It'd be nice for big accounts to fight big accounts and small accounts to fight small accounts in a war rather than big accounts being all-powerful.

3) You can sabotage someone regardless of them being maxed (if you have enough spy) if they've raided or sabotaged you in the last 24 hours.
This one is the most controversial/game changer change. Just for clarification - your sab will still count towards them being maxed - but if they're already maxed it will still allow you to sab. Something has to give if sabotaging isn't going to be limited by costing turns. It needs a downside to sabbing everybody in koc for free. The covert/weapon loss 'increase' that was made this age is still negligible. This needs to happen for 2 more reasons. First, it literally drives people away from the game to constantly have to deal with rogues who can sab/raid them, but they can't retaliate. I can't emphasize enough how important this is. Two, it stops people from abusing the logic of "I'm maxed anyways so I might as well sab all alliances because there's nothing they can do about it".

This will also make thought/strategy during war more powerful. If you want to go kamikaze spy with no sentry, then you have to limit the # of people you sab because they will be able to retaliate potentially after you're already maxed. Or you can go a decent amount of spy and keep sentry to stop these people from being able to sab you.

4) Make repair cost damage a product of SA : DA ratio.
It makes no sense that 1b SA raiding 100b DA can deal almost as much repair cost damage as 100b SA raiding 100b DA. The formula for covert losses is good in this regard, low SA kills very few coverts - but the formula for repair costs is not. Smaller players would also have protection from suggested change #2 from getting bullied - so this is specifically targeting players who just want to grief others.

5) Increase the SA requirement to raid somebody from 1:100 to 1:20.
Not super necessary if the above idea gets implemented - but it's an easy change and I see no reason people shouldn't have to work just a *little* bit harder to raid considering how easy it is to do right now. 1:20 is still very easy to reach.

6) Increase the cost of a raid from 5 turns to 15.
Raids are too cheap at the cost of 5 turns. Raid covert damage was doubled when undead/elf covert losses were nerfed by half, and with 2x income per soldier we now have 2x as many covert tools. This leaves us with 4x higher covert losses as compared to before during war. Raids are perhaps a little too strong now, and this is just a minor nerf so they don't become too strong.



Sorry, this post got a bit long. Basically, I think the fact that people have a maximum amount of armory they can lose per day is a great thing for the game. It stops people from getting zeroed out over night, and helps individuals fight big alliances more easily. Unfortunately, I also think it gets abused by a lot of people and protects people who only want to cause grief to large amounts of people while hiding behind the being maxed mechanic. I think the above changes will stop this abuse by 'rogues' and be a positive change for the game.

^what this guy says

The_Sovereign
11th August 2018, 06:13 PM
It is kind of pointless being a mid account in war. Too big to effectively mass people. Too small to sab the mains.

The only thing they are good for anymore is sell fodder.

Flaming Knights
11th August 2018, 06:19 PM
I'm all for being able to sab but sign me up for being salty that i cant do anything about this

Lost Last 24 Hours: 5,106,000,000 Gold

That's more than i recoup through TBG+hits in a day, so in another 24hrs i continue to lose more than i can make and i'm unable to sab in return.


My suggestion is that for every X players you sab your sab cap goes up by 5%. If a rogue wants to sab all of koc this cap should go up to 30%. This also makes sabbing more strategic in war rather than just chain sabbing the entire alliance. If someones wants to they still can they will just lose more of their own armory. Rogues sabbing all of koc is just bad for the game and you will have people leave or not want to play another age because of it.

The_Sovereign
11th August 2018, 06:27 PM
I'm all for being able to sab but sign me up for being salty that i cant do anything about this

Lost Last 24 Hours: 5,106,000,000 Gold

That's more than i recoup through TBG+hits in a day, so in another 24hrs i continue to lose more than i can make and i'm unable to sab in return.


My suggestion is that for every X players you sab your sab cap goes up by 5%. If a rogue wants to sab all of koc this cap should go up to 30%. This also makes sabbing more strategic in war rather than just chain sabbing the entire alliance. If someones wants to they still can they will just lose more of their own armory. Rogues sabbing all of koc is just bad for the game and you will have people leave or not want to play another age because of it.

Unfortunately, that would make mids even more useless in war. They would only sab the accounts that only they can sab and no one else.

They couldnt sab down the list because it would hurt them too much.

Karina
11th August 2018, 06:33 PM
This post is going to cover not only 'rogues' but warring in general as well. Any changes that have to do with rogues will also effect general koc warfare and therefore both aspects should be considered in any changes made.....

I don't really agree with your suggestions 1 and 3. Sometimes people get approved by an alliance for no other reason than existing. These BF policies everyone is so keen on following, easy to approve 1 player for "breaking" this policy. (I've seen it happen and it's happened to me). So this single player gets maxed by an alliance...but player doesn't take it laying down and retaliates. That player is well within their right to sab that whole alliance for such a silly thing, as they were approved. But these rules would make it super easy for that alliance to destroy this account simply for defending themselves. So I don't see how that is right and I don't see these particular suggestions as a game balance. I don't see how it would make sentry useful either? I'm still for the start fresh and make spy/sentry tools unsabbable and all else fair game. Then make modifications from there. The system for sabbing is already broken and sometimes the best way to fix a broken system is to start fresh.

Suggestion 1 has merit as long as there is some protection involved for some players who do enjoy playing solo or small alliances that don't want to be bullied, but again, how to do this, make having sentry worthwhile while still being able to support themselves.

Repair cost has long been an issue and could use some tweaking and increase SA requirements to raid someone, perhaps as well, but what would be fair?

I remember previous posts where there was always a comment about how admins "intended" the game to be played and how it is actually played. There won't ever be a complete balance as there will always be someone left out. What I do know is I came back to play a severely imbalanced game from before. It was never easy to destroy an account, like it is now.

Flaming Knights
11th August 2018, 06:38 PM
Unfortunately, that would make mids even more useless in war. They would only sab the accounts that only they can sab and no one else.

They couldnt sab down the list because it would hurt them too much.

Perhaps it encourages all players in the alliance to participate during war. Smalls sab smalls, mids sab mids, bigs sad bigs. If you chose to sab another range of players maybe there should be a risk for it?

_RoGuEsHaDoW_
11th August 2018, 09:09 PM
I think Brando's idea is shit. Any post over a few sentences isnt worth reading.

Tanouye
11th August 2018, 09:12 PM
This post is going to cover not only 'rogues' but warring in general as well. Any changes that have to do with rogues will also effect general koc warfare and therefore both aspects should be considered in any changes made.

The ability for any player to 'go rogue' is important. Alliances working together to hurt individual players with individual players having no protection is NOT something I or anybody else should be looking for. Everything needs a balance. Right now the balance between alliances vs rogues is simply skewed heavily in favor of rogues/griefers hiding behind the 'maxed' mechanic. We need to implement rules that reduce the power of rogues while implementing ideas that still protect their ability to protect their play style.

Warfare currently has the following problems:

Sentry is worthless.
Because maxing somebody is only 5% per 24 hours now, it only takes 5 people to max somebody. Other than an alliances top accounts, everybody easily gets maxed. There used to be mid-accounts that still had sentry, but now it's pointless. As long as 5 people can sab you daily you might as well have 0 sentry and just use the maxed mechanic to protect yourself.

It's too easy to play a 'kamikaze' account.
You can only lose 5% of your account per day to sabs, so why not just go elf, put 99% of your account into spy (sentry is worthless after all) and just rely on the game only allowing you to lose 5% of your account as your protection? There's strategy here, but it's too strong. Being 'maxed' is supposed to be a last resort protection so your account isn't instantly zeroed out, the way it's used now it feels like abuse.

Not very many people can get involved.
Because maxing only allows 5 people to sab someone in a day, the majority of your alliance just sits on their account and is unable to participate in the war. Yes, they can raid, but that's only one part of warfare and limits people's playstyle. We should have a system that encourages alliances to get MORE people involved in the war and help out, not one that encourages only a handful to do so.

There is very little strategy involved, just time consuming actions.
All I do during war is mindlessly sab all the way down the war list. There's no downside to me sabbing somebody small and no protection for them against me. There needs to be more strategy to: "should I sab this person?" rather than "do I have time to sab this person?"

Selling up is the only viable strategy.
Again, because it only takes 5 people to max somebody in a day, there's no point in having 20+ people with good spy. The mid and low accounts might as well just sell up to a stronger account for either sentry or more spy. While this is fine because it's strategy - keep in mind people often go inactive/quit the game after they sell off a few months in to an age. It's no fun to be a mid-account and feel like your entire account is useless in a war and the only decent way you can participate is to sell up to somebody else after you worked hard to build yourself up. I think the game is more fun when the strong strategies favor more people getting involved, not less.

Dealing with rogues currently have the following problems:

It's frustrating to get raided or sabbed only to find out you can't retaliate due to them being maxed.
I can't emphasize this more. It's the worst feeling in the world while playing koc to find someone screwing with you - but to have no way of retaliating back. Seriously. It sucks.

Kamikaze rogue strategies are too powerful.
Basically the same as what I mentioned in the warfare section. Rogues can invest 99% of their account in to spy, go elf, and sab as many people as they want while using the max armory loss as their protection. Big accouts will lose the rogues quickly, but mid-accounts/slayers who have to build SA/spy as their primary source of income can never deal with a rogue who just wants to go 100% spy and screw with people. At a cost of 0 turns, so they can sab all of koc and only 5 people can sab them back.

Rogues go after all of koc rather than an alliance they're having an issue with.
One of the most common arguments that rogues should be powerful is that an alliance creates these rogues by being bullies or doing something unfair/stupid. This age, however, since sabbing costing turns was removed almost everybody who went 'rogue' went after everybody in koc just for fun. And why not? If they go after 1 alliance they're maxed anyways, so why shouldn't they go after everybody else? There's nothing they can do about it and it leads back to that frustrating situation where you can't retaliate on someone screwing with you for no reason. And they can do it all at a cost of 0 turns, so they can easily use their turns to replenish any losses. People aren't 'roguing' to protect themselves, they're doing it to cause grief to koc which makes people quit the game because they feel bullied for no reason and they feel that the game protects them.

'Griefers' who play only to raid people with DA have to put in very little effort to maintain a small account that can deal insane amounts of damage.
Every age there's always a few people who create an account just to raid anybody who builds DA. Not because of any issue or grudge, but because it's so easy to do. This deals an extraordinary amount of damage and requires less than 5 minutes a day of effort. And you get to 'grief' the top players who can do nothing to protect themselves from it. I myself have done this one age when I didn't feel like playing. You should either have to put in more effort to maintain a higher SA to damage these people, or the damage should scale (i.e. low SA raids should do way less damage, high SA raids should do way more damage).

Suggested changes:

1) Increase the maximum armory inventory loss from 5% to 15% per day.
This alleviates a lot of problems by itself. At the very least, even if none of the other changes I mention happen, I think this one needs to happen. All of the sudden it takes 15 people to max someone instead of 5. This encourages you to get more people involved in sabbing during a war. This encourages mid-accounts to exist and not sell off because you need more people with high spy involved in a war. This encourages people to build some sentry, because if they allow 15 people to sab them daily they're going to lose a huge amount. This stops kamikaze rogues from maintaining such a high spy that can never be outgrown because they can lose a lot more daily if they don't invest some of their account into sentry. This makes it harder for griefers to maintain their SA while raiding. Someone who gets raided/sabbed by someone will be less likely to see the frustrating "this guy is maxed" message and more likely to cause some pain back. All of these things are good for the game.

2) You can't sabotage someone with less than 10% of your account value unless they have raided, sabotaged, or attacked you in the last 24 hours.
This is to stop bullying in general. Main accounts also shouldn't be able to just mindlessly be able to sab down the war list. I'm sure as a small account it's frustrating to see main accounts sab you daily when you have no chance to outgrow them. Small accounts should have some protections vs. big accounts. This number should maybe even be bigger, like 20-25%. It'd be nice for big accounts to fight big accounts and small accounts to fight small accounts in a war rather than big accounts being all-powerful.

3) You can sabotage someone regardless of them being maxed (if you have enough spy) if they've raided or sabotaged you in the last 24 hours.
This one is the most controversial/game changer change. Just for clarification - your sab will still count towards them being maxed - but if they're already maxed it will still allow you to sab. Something has to give if sabotaging isn't going to be limited by costing turns. It needs a downside to sabbing everybody in koc for free. The covert/weapon loss 'increase' that was made this age is still negligible. This needs to happen for 2 more reasons. First, it literally drives people away from the game to constantly have to deal with rogues who can sab/raid them, but they can't retaliate. I can't emphasize enough how important this is. Two, it stops people from abusing the logic of "I'm maxed anyways so I might as well sab all alliances because there's nothing they can do about it".

This will also make thought/strategy during war more powerful. If you want to go kamikaze spy with no sentry, then you have to limit the # of people you sab because they will be able to retaliate potentially after you're already maxed. Or you can go a decent amount of spy and keep sentry to stop these people from being able to sab you.

4) Make repair cost damage a product of SA : DA ratio.
It makes no sense that 1b SA raiding 100b DA can deal almost as much repair cost damage as 100b SA raiding 100b DA. The formula for covert losses is good in this regard, low SA kills very few coverts - but the formula for repair costs is not. Smaller players would also have protection from suggested change #2 from getting bullied - so this is specifically targeting players who just want to grief others.

5) Increase the SA requirement to raid somebody from 1:100 to 1:20.
Not super necessary if the above idea gets implemented - but it's an easy change and I see no reason people shouldn't have to work just a *little* bit harder to raid considering how easy it is to do right now. 1:20 is still very easy to reach.

6) Increase the cost of a raid from 5 turns to 15.
Raids are too cheap at the cost of 5 turns. Raid covert damage was doubled when undead/elf covert losses were nerfed by half, and with 2x income per soldier we now have 2x as many covert tools. This leaves us with 4x higher covert losses as compared to before during war. Raids are perhaps a little too strong now, and this is just a minor nerf so they don't become too strong.



Sorry, this post got a bit long. Basically, I think the fact that people have a maximum amount of armory they can lose per day is a great thing for the game. It stops people from getting zeroed out over night, and helps individuals fight big alliances more easily. Unfortunately, I also think it gets abused by a lot of people and protects people who only want to cause grief to large amounts of people while hiding behind the being maxed mechanic. I think the above changes will stop this abuse by 'rogues' and be a positive change for the game.

Thanks for taking the time to make this post, I considered posting something similar but didn't think it would be worth the time it would take to write it.

Right now all mid accounts are maxed, the only thing there is to do is sell up chain and keep enough SA to successfully raid big accounts 10 times a day. I miss when you actually had to balance your stats to gain targets or lose sabbers as a mid account. So much depth has been removed from the game with all these changes, you could basically just play any non-big account a 3-step flow chart at this point. I don't see any point to play this game next age unless you play to grief people, doing anything else just seems pointless with the current mechanics.

The_Sovereign
11th August 2018, 09:20 PM
Thanks for taking the time to make this post, I considered posting something similar but didn't think it would be worth the time it would take to write it.

Right now all mid accounts are maxed, the only thing there is to do is sell up chain and keep enough SA to successfully raid big accounts 10 times a day. I miss when you actually had to balance your stats to gain targets or lose sabbers as a mid account. So much depth has been removed from the game with all these changes, you could basically just play any non-big account a 3-step flow chart at this point. I don't see any point to play this game next age unless you play to grief people, doing anything else just seems pointless with the current mechanics.

My biggest complaint is that someone that started the game yesterday could do more damage than a mid account. A tiny account that could do 200-300 raids a day is way more powerful than a 1 million tff account that can only sit there and get sabbed.

Night``
11th August 2018, 09:23 PM
Here's a thought .. since sabbing won't cost turns ... what about changing how Raids work ... Raids to not cost turns nor create weapons damage nor capture gold, BUT you can lose weapons the same as you can lose tools in sabbing, make the logarithm the same. A player can use Raids to kill coverts which, as far as I know, is about the only way to retaliate against a sabber you can't sab back.

Nordramious
11th August 2018, 09:35 PM
I think this idea deserves some attention because it might give some needed balance and it seems like a fair solution to me.

If you sab 500 people those 500 people could sab you in return and likely destroy your account.. Sab caps could stay as they are now and the "rogue" can easily build up spy and go on another big sabrun within a few days. On the days the rogue isn't sabbing he can easily build up again with low losses, even when maxed but he won't be able to inflict enormous damage every day but the rogue can still inflict a lot more damage than he takes.

The only thing i dont like is that if you have one person in alliance getting sabbed you cant help sabb them as well. I rely on that alot with if one of my officers gets sabbed and they dont have spy to retaliate then we cant step in to help, but on the counter side of that it will force higher sentry and spys on accounts. And that will help with people using scripts cause they dont need spy cause they can ask for a 48 page recon so they can hit. So this may bring down some of the aspects of scripts that i hate.

Nordramious

SpiderWoman
11th August 2018, 11:20 PM
This post is going to cover not only 'rogues' but warring in general as well. Any changes that have to do with rogues will also effect general koc warfare and therefore both aspects should be considered in any changes made.

The ability for any player to 'go rogue' is important. Alliances working together to hurt individual players with individual players having no protection is NOT something I or anybody else should be looking for. Everything needs a balance. Right now the balance between alliances vs rogues is simply skewed heavily in favor of rogues/griefers hiding behind the 'maxed' mechanic. We need to implement rules that reduce the power of rogues while implementing ideas that still protect their ability to protect their play style.

Warfare currently has the following problems:

Sentry is worthless.
Because maxing somebody is only 5% per 24 hours now, it only takes 5 people to max somebody. Other than an alliances top accounts, everybody easily gets maxed. There used to be mid-accounts that still had sentry, but now it's pointless. As long as 5 people can sab you daily you might as well have 0 sentry and just use the maxed mechanic to protect yourself.

It's too easy to play a 'kamikaze' account.
You can only lose 5% of your account per day to sabs, so why not just go elf, put 99% of your account into spy (sentry is worthless after all) and just rely on the game only allowing you to lose 5% of your account as your protection? There's strategy here, but it's too strong. Being 'maxed' is supposed to be a last resort protection so your account isn't instantly zeroed out, the way it's used now it feels like abuse.

Not very many people can get involved.
Because maxing only allows 5 people to sab someone in a day, the majority of your alliance just sits on their account and is unable to participate in the war. Yes, they can raid, but that's only one part of warfare and limits people's playstyle. We should have a system that encourages alliances to get MORE people involved in the war and help out, not one that encourages only a handful to do so.

There is very little strategy involved, just time consuming actions.
All I do during war is mindlessly sab all the way down the war list. There's no downside to me sabbing somebody small and no protection for them against me. There needs to be more strategy to: "should I sab this person?" rather than "do I have time to sab this person?"

Selling up is the only viable strategy.
Again, because it only takes 5 people to max somebody in a day, there's no point in having 20+ people with good spy. The mid and low accounts might as well just sell up to a stronger account for either sentry or more spy. While this is fine because it's strategy - keep in mind people often go inactive/quit the game after they sell off a few months in to an age. It's no fun to be a mid-account and feel like your entire account is useless in a war and the only decent way you can participate is to sell up to somebody else after you worked hard to build yourself up. I think the game is more fun when the strong strategies favor more people getting involved, not less.

Dealing with rogues currently have the following problems:

It's frustrating to get raided or sabbed only to find out you can't retaliate due to them being maxed.
I can't emphasize this more. It's the worst feeling in the world while playing koc to find someone screwing with you - but to have no way of retaliating back. Seriously. It sucks.

Kamikaze rogue strategies are too powerful.
Basically the same as what I mentioned in the warfare section. Rogues can invest 99% of their account in to spy, go elf, and sab as many people as they want while using the max armory loss as their protection. Big accouts will lose the rogues quickly, but mid-accounts/slayers who have to build SA/spy as their primary source of income can never deal with a rogue who just wants to go 100% spy and screw with people. At a cost of 0 turns, so they can sab all of koc and only 5 people can sab them back.

Rogues go after all of koc rather than an alliance they're having an issue with.
One of the most common arguments that rogues should be powerful is that an alliance creates these rogues by being bullies or doing something unfair/stupid. This age, however, since sabbing costing turns was removed almost everybody who went 'rogue' went after everybody in koc just for fun. And why not? If they go after 1 alliance they're maxed anyways, so why shouldn't they go after everybody else? There's nothing they can do about it and it leads back to that frustrating situation where you can't retaliate on someone screwing with you for no reason. And they can do it all at a cost of 0 turns, so they can easily use their turns to replenish any losses. People aren't 'roguing' to protect themselves, they're doing it to cause grief to koc which makes people quit the game because they feel bullied for no reason and they feel that the game protects them.

'Griefers' who play only to raid people with DA have to put in very little effort to maintain a small account that can deal insane amounts of damage.
Every age there's always a few people who create an account just to raid anybody who builds DA. Not because of any issue or grudge, but because it's so easy to do. This deals an extraordinary amount of damage and requires less than 5 minutes a day of effort. And you get to 'grief' the top players who can do nothing to protect themselves from it. I myself have done this one age when I didn't feel like playing. You should either have to put in more effort to maintain a higher SA to damage these people, or the damage should scale (i.e. low SA raids should do way less damage, high SA raids should do way more damage).

Suggested changes:

1) Increase the maximum armory inventory loss from 5% to 15% per day.
This alleviates a lot of problems by itself. At the very least, even if none of the other changes I mention happen, I think this one needs to happen. All of the sudden it takes 15 people to max someone instead of 5. This encourages you to get more people involved in sabbing during a war. This encourages mid-accounts to exist and not sell off because you need more people with high spy involved in a war. This encourages people to build some sentry, because if they allow 15 people to sab them daily they're going to lose a huge amount. This stops kamikaze rogues from maintaining such a high spy that can never be outgrown because they can lose a lot more daily if they don't invest some of their account into sentry. This makes it harder for griefers to maintain their SA while raiding. Someone who gets raided/sabbed by someone will be less likely to see the frustrating "this guy is maxed" message and more likely to cause some pain back. All of these things are good for the game.

2) You can't sabotage someone with less than 10% of your account value unless they have raided, sabotaged, or attacked you in the last 24 hours.
This is to stop bullying in general. Main accounts also shouldn't be able to just mindlessly be able to sab down the war list. I'm sure as a small account it's frustrating to see main accounts sab you daily when you have no chance to outgrow them. Small accounts should have some protections vs. big accounts. This number should maybe even be bigger, like 20-25%. It'd be nice for big accounts to fight big accounts and small accounts to fight small accounts in a war rather than big accounts being all-powerful.

3) You can sabotage someone regardless of them being maxed (if you have enough spy) if they've raided or sabotaged you in the last 24 hours.
This one is the most controversial/game changer change. Just for clarification - your sab will still count towards them being maxed - but if they're already maxed it will still allow you to sab. Something has to give if sabotaging isn't going to be limited by costing turns. It needs a downside to sabbing everybody in koc for free. The covert/weapon loss 'increase' that was made this age is still negligible. This needs to happen for 2 more reasons. First, it literally drives people away from the game to constantly have to deal with rogues who can sab/raid them, but they can't retaliate. I can't emphasize enough how important this is. Two, it stops people from abusing the logic of "I'm maxed anyways so I might as well sab all alliances because there's nothing they can do about it".

This will also make thought/strategy during war more powerful. If you want to go kamikaze spy with no sentry, then you have to limit the # of people you sab because they will be able to retaliate potentially after you're already maxed. Or you can go a decent amount of spy and keep sentry to stop these people from being able to sab you.

4) Make repair cost damage a product of SA : DA ratio.
It makes no sense that 1b SA raiding 100b DA can deal almost as much repair cost damage as 100b SA raiding 100b DA. The formula for covert losses is good in this regard, low SA kills very few coverts - but the formula for repair costs is not. Smaller players would also have protection from suggested change #2 from getting bullied - so this is specifically targeting players who just want to grief others.

5) Increase the SA requirement to raid somebody from 1:100 to 1:20.
Not super necessary if the above idea gets implemented - but it's an easy change and I see no reason people shouldn't have to work just a *little* bit harder to raid considering how easy it is to do right now. 1:20 is still very easy to reach.

6) Increase the cost of a raid from 5 turns to 15.
Raids are too cheap at the cost of 5 turns. Raid covert damage was doubled when undead/elf covert losses were nerfed by half, and with 2x income per soldier we now have 2x as many covert tools. This leaves us with 4x higher covert losses as compared to before during war. Raids are perhaps a little too strong now, and this is just a minor nerf so they don't become too strong.



Sorry, this post got a bit long. Basically, I think the fact that people have a maximum amount of armory they can lose per day is a great thing for the game. It stops people from getting zeroed out over night, and helps individuals fight big alliances more easily. Unfortunately, I also think it gets abused by a lot of people and protects people who only want to cause grief to large amounts of people while hiding behind the being maxed mechanic. I think the above changes will stop this abuse by 'rogues' and be a positive change for the game.

I also completely agree as being a main this age and putting in 18 hours a day on the account then having rogues come with barely any SA and it only takes 5-6 rouges to completely take all of my TBG daily just to repair Also fustrated I can't sab back those that do it as they are always maxed so I'm just about ready to give up, why even try when 5-6 people can ruin your entire age worth of work?

GrowerNotShower
12th August 2018, 04:54 AM
A lot of people have suggested the change that you can sab anyone who sabbed you even if they're maxed. I agree it'd be good, but here's an alternative suggestion just in case it isn't viable/easy to implement.

At the moment, sabbing is virtually without cost. Bon has said sab turns won't come back, but is there an alternative way? Couple days ago I sabbed 4x1100 or so LTs from Shasta, and lost I think about 2 Nunchukas doing so. So it cost me 2m to sab 4.4b of weapons. That's pretty ridiculous when you think about it right? Now, let's say that each spy you send can only sab 10 weapons*, but you can send an unlimited number of spies. I would have had to send 110 spies. Now, if the formulas could be made so on average I would be expected to lose approximately 200-400 Nuns (5-10% of what I'm aiming to sab, off the top of my head and negotiable of course), then that would be a much more reasonable price. It's still way more damage to my opponent, but it does mean I have to be selective about who I try and sab. It also means that people most likely won't sab/get someone approved over 1 "low hit", because it'd cost them more to sab than they lost from the "low hit". It also means that ghosting or getting through with minimal fails is more beneficial than if it takes you 40 odd attempts to succeed 4 times (I also really wish this could be simplified to 10x attempts, creating some genuine chaos because you are guaranteed to succeed 4 times out of 10.).

*This could either be 10x 1m weapons, or 10m total weapon value, so you can sab 40x DSs for example. Or it could literally be 10x any weapon, which could make it interesting as you would be more incentivized to buy the cheaper weapons which nobody bothers with at the moment, creating a whole new tactical element.

What say GUA to my most awesome of awesome suggestions?

Mielinski
12th August 2018, 05:10 AM
This post is going to cover not only 'rogues' but warring in general as well. Any changes that have to do with rogues will also effect general koc warfare and therefore both aspects should be considered in any changes made.

The ability for any player to 'go rogue' is important. Alliances working together to hurt individual players with individual players having no protection is NOT something I or anybody else should be looking for. Everything needs a balance. Right now the balance between alliances vs rogues is simply skewed heavily in favor of rogues/griefers hiding behind the 'maxed' mechanic. We need to implement rules that reduce the power of rogues while implementing ideas that still protect their ability to protect their play style.

Warfare currently has the following problems:

Sentry is worthless.
Because maxing somebody is only 5% per 24 hours now, it only takes 5 people to max somebody. Other than an alliances top accounts, everybody easily gets maxed. There used to be mid-accounts that still had sentry, but now it's pointless. As long as 5 people can sab you daily you might as well have 0 sentry and just use the maxed mechanic to protect yourself.

It's too easy to play a 'kamikaze' account.
You can only lose 5% of your account per day to sabs, so why not just go elf, put 99% of your account into spy (sentry is worthless after all) and just rely on the game only allowing you to lose 5% of your account as your protection? There's strategy here, but it's too strong. Being 'maxed' is supposed to be a last resort protection so your account isn't instantly zeroed out, the way it's used now it feels like abuse.

Not very many people can get involved.
Because maxing only allows 5 people to sab someone in a day, the majority of your alliance just sits on their account and is unable to participate in the war. Yes, they can raid, but that's only one part of warfare and limits people's playstyle. We should have a system that encourages alliances to get MORE people involved in the war and help out, not one that encourages only a handful to do so.

There is very little strategy involved, just time consuming actions.
All I do during war is mindlessly sab all the way down the war list. There's no downside to me sabbing somebody small and no protection for them against me. There needs to be more strategy to: "should I sab this person?" rather than "do I have time to sab this person?"

Selling up is the only viable strategy.
Again, because it only takes 5 people to max somebody in a day, there's no point in having 20+ people with good spy. The mid and low accounts might as well just sell up to a stronger account for either sentry or more spy. While this is fine because it's strategy - keep in mind people often go inactive/quit the game after they sell off a few months in to an age. It's no fun to be a mid-account and feel like your entire account is useless in a war and the only decent way you can participate is to sell up to somebody else after you worked hard to build yourself up. I think the game is more fun when the strong strategies favor more people getting involved, not less.

Dealing with rogues currently have the following problems:

It's frustrating to get raided or sabbed only to find out you can't retaliate due to them being maxed.
I can't emphasize this more. It's the worst feeling in the world while playing koc to find someone screwing with you - but to have no way of retaliating back. Seriously. It sucks.

Kamikaze rogue strategies are too powerful.
Basically the same as what I mentioned in the warfare section. Rogues can invest 99% of their account in to spy, go elf, and sab as many people as they want while using the max armory loss as their protection. Big accouts will lose the rogues quickly, but mid-accounts/slayers who have to build SA/spy as their primary source of income can never deal with a rogue who just wants to go 100% spy and screw with people. At a cost of 0 turns, so they can sab all of koc and only 5 people can sab them back.

Rogues go after all of koc rather than an alliance they're having an issue with.
One of the most common arguments that rogues should be powerful is that an alliance creates these rogues by being bullies or doing something unfair/stupid. This age, however, since sabbing costing turns was removed almost everybody who went 'rogue' went after everybody in koc just for fun. And why not? If they go after 1 alliance they're maxed anyways, so why shouldn't they go after everybody else? There's nothing they can do about it and it leads back to that frustrating situation where you can't retaliate on someone screwing with you for no reason. And they can do it all at a cost of 0 turns, so they can easily use their turns to replenish any losses. People aren't 'roguing' to protect themselves, they're doing it to cause grief to koc which makes people quit the game because they feel bullied for no reason and they feel that the game protects them.

'Griefers' who play only to raid people with DA have to put in very little effort to maintain a small account that can deal insane amounts of damage.
Every age there's always a few people who create an account just to raid anybody who builds DA. Not because of any issue or grudge, but because it's so easy to do. This deals an extraordinary amount of damage and requires less than 5 minutes a day of effort. And you get to 'grief' the top players who can do nothing to protect themselves from it. I myself have done this one age when I didn't feel like playing. You should either have to put in more effort to maintain a higher SA to damage these people, or the damage should scale (i.e. low SA raids should do way less damage, high SA raids should do way more damage).

Suggested changes:

1) Increase the maximum armory inventory loss from 5% to 15% per day.
This alleviates a lot of problems by itself. At the very least, even if none of the other changes I mention happen, I think this one needs to happen. All of the sudden it takes 15 people to max someone instead of 5. This encourages you to get more people involved in sabbing during a war. This encourages mid-accounts to exist and not sell off because you need more people with high spy involved in a war. This encourages people to build some sentry, because if they allow 15 people to sab them daily they're going to lose a huge amount. This stops kamikaze rogues from maintaining such a high spy that can never be outgrown because they can lose a lot more daily if they don't invest some of their account into sentry. This makes it harder for griefers to maintain their SA while raiding. Someone who gets raided/sabbed by someone will be less likely to see the frustrating "this guy is maxed" message and more likely to cause some pain back. All of these things are good for the game.

2) You can't sabotage someone with less than 10% of your account value unless they have raided, sabotaged, or attacked you in the last 24 hours.
This is to stop bullying in general. Main accounts also shouldn't be able to just mindlessly be able to sab down the war list. I'm sure as a small account it's frustrating to see main accounts sab you daily when you have no chance to outgrow them. Small accounts should have some protections vs. big accounts. This number should maybe even be bigger, like 20-25%. It'd be nice for big accounts to fight big accounts and small accounts to fight small accounts in a war rather than big accounts being all-powerful.

3) You can sabotage someone regardless of them being maxed (if you have enough spy) if they've raided or sabotaged you in the last 24 hours.
This one is the most controversial/game changer change. Just for clarification - your sab will still count towards them being maxed - but if they're already maxed it will still allow you to sab. Something has to give if sabotaging isn't going to be limited by costing turns. It needs a downside to sabbing everybody in koc for free. The covert/weapon loss 'increase' that was made this age is still negligible. This needs to happen for 2 more reasons. First, it literally drives people away from the game to constantly have to deal with rogues who can sab/raid them, but they can't retaliate. I can't emphasize enough how important this is. Two, it stops people from abusing the logic of "I'm maxed anyways so I might as well sab all alliances because there's nothing they can do about it".

This will also make thought/strategy during war more powerful. If you want to go kamikaze spy with no sentry, then you have to limit the # of people you sab because they will be able to retaliate potentially after you're already maxed. Or you can go a decent amount of spy and keep sentry to stop these people from being able to sab you.

4) Make repair cost damage a product of SA : DA ratio.
It makes no sense that 1b SA raiding 100b DA can deal almost as much repair cost damage as 100b SA raiding 100b DA. The formula for covert losses is good in this regard, low SA kills very few coverts - but the formula for repair costs is not. Smaller players would also have protection from suggested change #2 from getting bullied - so this is specifically targeting players who just want to grief others.

5) Increase the SA requirement to raid somebody from 1:100 to 1:20.
Not super necessary if the above idea gets implemented - but it's an easy change and I see no reason people shouldn't have to work just a *little* bit harder to raid considering how easy it is to do right now. 1:20 is still very easy to reach.

6) Increase the cost of a raid from 5 turns to 15.
Raids are too cheap at the cost of 5 turns. Raid covert damage was doubled when undead/elf covert losses were nerfed by half, and with 2x income per soldier we now have 2x as many covert tools. This leaves us with 4x higher covert losses as compared to before during war. Raids are perhaps a little too strong now, and this is just a minor nerf so they don't become too strong.



Sorry, this post got a bit long. Basically, I think the fact that people have a maximum amount of armory they can lose per day is a great thing for the game. It stops people from getting zeroed out over night, and helps individuals fight big alliances more easily. Unfortunately, I also think it gets abused by a lot of people and protects people who only want to cause grief to large amounts of people while hiding behind the being maxed mechanic. I think the above changes will stop this abuse by 'rogues' and be a positive change for the game.

I agree 100% with this post!
Btw bon you comment about EOA chaos. It's been like this the whole beta age.

Lancelotnl
12th August 2018, 06:48 AM
Isn't that what a lot of people want to do? If you want do do damage back you can hit the Raid button 10x aday.

Raids are much more powerful this age. They cost 20% of what they used to turn wise. Casualties are doubled on Undead from prior ages (see how much TFF Lance is down? He would have DM TFF if it wasn't for the war raids)

Bruh I would have been way past DM. Was same tff when we started war.

Lancelotnl
12th August 2018, 06:50 AM
Exactly. A lot of people think they can play however they want and not be penalized. Said people think they can play poorly or do something silly like stack DA and have no consequences. In a war game too

My account won't fall today but it will fall

Why should one be penalized?

LukashTUE
12th August 2018, 07:13 AM
Answer to rouges is simple, sab protection stays as it is, and for every successful sab of 5 turns, sabber open his armory for 1 turn (or 0.5 or smth).
Ez, and effective. That resolve 2 things - will protect nubz that can't retaliate, and help to eliminate rouges armory faster.

The_Sovereign
12th August 2018, 10:18 AM
Answer to rouges is simple, sab protection stays as it is, and for every successful sab of 5 turns, sabber open his armory for 1 turn (or 0.5 or smth).
Ez, and effective. That resolve 2 things - will protect nubz that can't retaliate, and help to eliminate rouges armory faster.

That would make war less fun.

krieper
12th August 2018, 10:25 AM
That would make war less fun.

Right now, you need only 5 players to max someone.
Damage done is also very minimal, especially if you keep your AAT small by selling useless stats.

If you implement suggested changes, you can involve a lot more players in the sabfun.
Wars will evolve faster, as damage comes in faster.

I'd say the suggested changes will make war more fun.

LinguiniFresh
12th August 2018, 10:49 AM
A lot of people have suggested the change that you can sab anyone who sabbed you even if they're maxed. I agree it'd be good, but here's an alternative suggestion just in case it isn't viable/easy to implement.

At the moment, sabbing is virtually without cost. Bon has said sab turns won't come back, but is there an alternative way? Couple days ago I sabbed 4x1100 or so LTs from Shasta, and lost I think about 2 Nunchukas doing so. So it cost me 2m to sab 4.4b of weapons. That's pretty ridiculous when you think about it right? Now, let's say that each spy you send can only sab 10 weapons*, but you can send an unlimited number of spies. I would have had to send 110 spies. Now, if the formulas could be made so on average I would be expected to lose approximately 200-400 Nuns (5-10% of what I'm aiming to sab, off the top of my head and negotiable of course), then that would be a much more reasonable price. It's still way more damage to my opponent, but it does mean I have to be selective about who I try and sab. It also means that people most likely won't sab/get someone approved over 1 "low hit", because it'd cost them more to sab than they lost from the "low hit". It also means that ghosting or getting through with minimal fails is more beneficial than if it takes you 40 odd attempts to succeed 4 times (I also really wish this could be simplified to 10x attempts, creating some genuine chaos because you are guaranteed to succeed 4 times out of 10.).

*This could either be 10x 1m weapons, or 10m total weapon value, so you can sab 40x DSs for example. Or it could literally be 10x any weapon, which could make it interesting as you would be more incentivized to buy the cheaper weapons which nobody bothers with at the moment, creating a whole new tactical element.

What say GUA to my most awesome of awesome suggestions?

This is how the game used to be ages ago. More balanced back then :)



Why should one be penalized?

Are you asking why someone shouldn't have a potential downside for playing poorly in a war game like this? hahaha

Darth
12th August 2018, 06:14 PM
Answer to rouges is simple, sab protection stays as it is, and for every successful sab of 5 turns, sabber open his armory for 1 turn (or 0.5 or smth).
Ez, and effective. That resolve 2 things - will protect nubz that can't retaliate, and help to eliminate rouges armory faster.

I like this the best. Even if the ratio is quite small, it will stack up very quickly when someone rogues the whole game. It also introduces some interesting war strategy, incentivizing some mid-level accounts not to sab too much. I would speculate 10:1 would be be a good ratio there.

snap
12th August 2018, 09:08 PM
Is there any solution to Ghost Sabbing ? When your sentry is not high enough to detect who sabbed..so you cannot take any action...raids or even reporting to one's alliance..Can that be logged or something ?

Karina
12th August 2018, 09:14 PM
Answer to rouges is simple, sab protection stays as it is, and for every successful sab of 5 turns, sabber open his armory for 1 turn (or 0.5 or smth).
Ez, and effective. That resolve 2 things - will protect nubz that can't retaliate, and help to eliminate rouges armory faster.

Terrible idea. For those that get bullied and chose to defend their account, allows the bigger alliances to continue to bully. This really is not the answer. I don't see the answer being to increase % to be sabbed, but again, going back to basic and making sab/sentry tools unsabbale so players still have something to work with and everything else fair game. Players need to slay and will need to hold SA, players will need DA to protect their gold, small accounts that are "spy only" won't ever be able to compete against big account growths and therefore eliminate the "rogues" that you all created with your BF Policies.

bloodpirate
12th August 2018, 09:52 PM
people want to be able to sab all those who sab them .. eg: someone with 1T sentry, sabs all those with less than 500B spy .. none can sab him/her back. or do you want to make the spy/sentry void ? meaning, no matter what their sentry is, if a person sabs another person, the sabbed person can sab the sabber back?

as to damaging rogues. if everyone in koc raided a rogue, they would have zero spies/sentries. who do people not all raid rogues?

Brandonito
12th August 2018, 10:26 PM
people want to be able to sab all those who sab them .. eg: someone with 1T sentry, sabs all those with less than 500B spy .. none can sab him/her back. or do you want to make the spy/sentry void ? meaning, no matter what their sentry is, if a person sabs another person, the sabbed person can sab the sabber back?

as to damaging rogues. if everyone in koc raided a rogue, they would have zero spies/sentries. who do people not all raid rogues?

The suggestion is that you can sab back as long as you have enough spy to do so successfully.

bloodpirate
12th August 2018, 11:21 PM
The suggestion is that you can sab back as long as you have enough spy to do so successfully.

so, someone spends about 2 months building an account, and some alliance approves them for a low hit, and sabs him. he can't sab most of them, but sabs all their officers. he is then considered a rogue. doesn't seem right. now you will say, that alliances will aid their members, and approve the rogue, nothing has changed since he probably won't be able to sab half those sabbing him.

Centurold
13th August 2018, 02:05 AM
This post is going to cover not only 'rogues' but warring in general as well. Any changes that have to do with rogues will also effect general koc warfare and therefore both aspects should be considered in any changes made.

The ability for any player to 'go rogue' is important. Alliances working together to hurt individual players with individual players having no protection is NOT something I or anybody else should be looking for. Everything needs a balance. Right now the balance between alliances vs rogues is simply skewed heavily in favor of rogues/griefers hiding behind the 'maxed' mechanic. We need to implement rules that reduce the power of rogues while implementing ideas that still protect their ability to protect their play style.

Warfare currently has the following problems:

Sentry is worthless.
Because maxing somebody is only 5% per 24 hours now, it only takes 5 people to max somebody. Other than an alliances top accounts, everybody easily gets maxed. There used to be mid-accounts that still had sentry, but now it's pointless. As long as 5 people can sab you daily you might as well have 0 sentry and just use the maxed mechanic to protect yourself.

It's too easy to play a 'kamikaze' account.
You can only lose 5% of your account per day to sabs, so why not just go elf, put 99% of your account into spy (sentry is worthless after all) and just rely on the game only allowing you to lose 5% of your account as your protection? There's strategy here, but it's too strong. Being 'maxed' is supposed to be a last resort protection so your account isn't instantly zeroed out, the way it's used now it feels like abuse.

Not very many people can get involved.
Because maxing only allows 5 people to sab someone in a day, the majority of your alliance just sits on their account and is unable to participate in the war. Yes, they can raid, but that's only one part of warfare and limits people's playstyle. We should have a system that encourages alliances to get MORE people involved in the war and help out, not one that encourages only a handful to do so.

There is very little strategy involved, just time consuming actions.
All I do during war is mindlessly sab all the way down the war list. There's no downside to me sabbing somebody small and no protection for them against me. There needs to be more strategy to: "should I sab this person?" rather than "do I have time to sab this person?"

Selling up is the only viable strategy.
Again, because it only takes 5 people to max somebody in a day, there's no point in having 20+ people with good spy. The mid and low accounts might as well just sell up to a stronger account for either sentry or more spy. While this is fine because it's strategy - keep in mind people often go inactive/quit the game after they sell off a few months in to an age. It's no fun to be a mid-account and feel like your entire account is useless in a war and the only decent way you can participate is to sell up to somebody else after you worked hard to build yourself up. I think the game is more fun when the strong strategies favor more people getting involved, not less.

Dealing with rogues currently have the following problems:

It's frustrating to get raided or sabbed only to find out you can't retaliate due to them being maxed.
I can't emphasize this more. It's the worst feeling in the world while playing koc to find someone screwing with you - but to have no way of retaliating back. Seriously. It sucks.

Kamikaze rogue strategies are too powerful.
Basically the same as what I mentioned in the warfare section. Rogues can invest 99% of their account in to spy, go elf, and sab as many people as they want while using the max armory loss as their protection. Big accouts will lose the rogues quickly, but mid-accounts/slayers who have to build SA/spy as their primary source of income can never deal with a rogue who just wants to go 100% spy and screw with people. At a cost of 0 turns, so they can sab all of koc and only 5 people can sab them back.

Rogues go after all of koc rather than an alliance they're having an issue with.
One of the most common arguments that rogues should be powerful is that an alliance creates these rogues by being bullies or doing something unfair/stupid. This age, however, since sabbing costing turns was removed almost everybody who went 'rogue' went after everybody in koc just for fun. And why not? If they go after 1 alliance they're maxed anyways, so why shouldn't they go after everybody else? There's nothing they can do about it and it leads back to that frustrating situation where you can't retaliate on someone screwing with you for no reason. And they can do it all at a cost of 0 turns, so they can easily use their turns to replenish any losses. People aren't 'roguing' to protect themselves, they're doing it to cause grief to koc which makes people quit the game because they feel bullied for no reason and they feel that the game protects them.

'Griefers' who play only to raid people with DA have to put in very little effort to maintain a small account that can deal insane amounts of damage.
Every age there's always a few people who create an account just to raid anybody who builds DA. Not because of any issue or grudge, but because it's so easy to do. This deals an extraordinary amount of damage and requires less than 5 minutes a day of effort. And you get to 'grief' the top players who can do nothing to protect themselves from it. I myself have done this one age when I didn't feel like playing. You should either have to put in more effort to maintain a higher SA to damage these people, or the damage should scale (i.e. low SA raids should do way less damage, high SA raids should do way more damage).

Suggested changes:

1) Increase the maximum armory inventory loss from 5% to 15% per day.
This alleviates a lot of problems by itself. At the very least, even if none of the other changes I mention happen, I think this one needs to happen. All of the sudden it takes 15 people to max someone instead of 5. This encourages you to get more people involved in sabbing during a war. This encourages mid-accounts to exist and not sell off because you need more people with high spy involved in a war. This encourages people to build some sentry, because if they allow 15 people to sab them daily they're going to lose a huge amount. This stops kamikaze rogues from maintaining such a high spy that can never be outgrown because they can lose a lot more daily if they don't invest some of their account into sentry. This makes it harder for griefers to maintain their SA while raiding. Someone who gets raided/sabbed by someone will be less likely to see the frustrating "this guy is maxed" message and more likely to cause some pain back. All of these things are good for the game.

2) You can't sabotage someone with less than 10% of your account value unless they have raided, sabotaged, or attacked you in the last 24 hours.
This is to stop bullying in general. Main accounts also shouldn't be able to just mindlessly be able to sab down the war list. I'm sure as a small account it's frustrating to see main accounts sab you daily when you have no chance to outgrow them. Small accounts should have some protections vs. big accounts. This number should maybe even be bigger, like 20-25%. It'd be nice for big accounts to fight big accounts and small accounts to fight small accounts in a war rather than big accounts being all-powerful.

3) You can sabotage someone regardless of them being maxed (if you have enough spy) if they've raided or sabotaged you in the last 24 hours.
This one is the most controversial/game changer change. Just for clarification - your sab will still count towards them being maxed - but if they're already maxed it will still allow you to sab. Something has to give if sabotaging isn't going to be limited by costing turns. It needs a downside to sabbing everybody in koc for free. The covert/weapon loss 'increase' that was made this age is still negligible. This needs to happen for 2 more reasons. First, it literally drives people away from the game to constantly have to deal with rogues who can sab/raid them, but they can't retaliate. I can't emphasize enough how important this is. Two, it stops people from abusing the logic of "I'm maxed anyways so I might as well sab all alliances because there's nothing they can do about it".

This will also make thought/strategy during war more powerful. If you want to go kamikaze spy with no sentry, then you have to limit the # of people you sab because they will be able to retaliate potentially after you're already maxed. Or you can go a decent amount of spy and keep sentry to stop these people from being able to sab you.

4) Make repair cost damage a product of SA : DA ratio.
It makes no sense that 1b SA raiding 100b DA can deal almost as much repair cost damage as 100b SA raiding 100b DA. The formula for covert losses is good in this regard, low SA kills very few coverts - but the formula for repair costs is not. Smaller players would also have protection from suggested change #2 from getting bullied - so this is specifically targeting players who just want to grief others.

5) Increase the SA requirement to raid somebody from 1:100 to 1:20.
Not super necessary if the above idea gets implemented - but it's an easy change and I see no reason people shouldn't have to work just a *little* bit harder to raid considering how easy it is to do right now. 1:20 is still very easy to reach.

6) Increase the cost of a raid from 5 turns to 15.
Raids are too cheap at the cost of 5 turns. Raid covert damage was doubled when undead/elf covert losses were nerfed by half, and with 2x income per soldier we now have 2x as many covert tools. This leaves us with 4x higher covert losses as compared to before during war. Raids are perhaps a little too strong now, and this is just a minor nerf so they don't become too strong.



Sorry, this post got a bit long. Basically, I think the fact that people have a maximum amount of armory they can lose per day is a great thing for the game. It stops people from getting zeroed out over night, and helps individuals fight big alliances more easily. Unfortunately, I also think it gets abused by a lot of people and protects people who only want to cause grief to large amounts of people while hiding behind the being maxed mechanic. I think the above changes will stop this abuse by 'rogues' and be a positive change for the game.

A piece of art ...

kaoz
13th August 2018, 03:07 AM
A piece of art ...

Sounds more like a rankers wet dream.

Raiding is too cheap and easy, do you realise what one full raid costs for let's say a mid account?
We all have the same losses % wise, yeah you lose more with a bigger account obviously and rouges are just a trend now when the Beta comes to its end.

As far as many are concerned is that raids don't hurt them according to the messages saying: "that raid did hurt you more as it did me, please come again"

Case closed!

MFnBonsai
13th August 2018, 04:52 AM
If we up the damage done to rogue it also effects those that aren’t rogues....

Vredesbyrd
13th August 2018, 05:26 AM
Lets not make KOC too complicated, lets just end it as soon as possible and let the rankers do what they do and start a new age based on what is now. Let some of the players that is not happy yet play in a coming beta while the rest of us adapt and enjoy to the new era. Worst thing you could do now is to prolonge the age as most of us is already tired of it.

krieper
13th August 2018, 05:46 AM
If we up the damage done to rogue it also effects those that arenít rogues....

You could set a triggerpoint. For example when you sab over 10, 20, 30 a day, your sabable armory % goes up.

RMFz-
13th August 2018, 07:19 AM
If we up the damage done to rogue it also effects those that aren’t rogues....

On that note, I'll give my opinion.

Rogues don't last very long; it is a lot of effort to maintain a spy only account. Larger accounts can simply turtle sentry and get out of range. A rogue needs to be able to maintain coverts, slay and bank very effectively to be able to grow. If you have enough raids on a rogue (they usually have 0 DA, so it doesn't cost the moon), he or she will NOT be able to hold a large spy. Now, if you can't muster 8-10 people in a really large chain to mass a rogue daily, then you have bigger problems. A lot of big accounts get sabotaged for 2-3 days and sell off because they lost 4-5 billion in value over 3 days. I don't get the issue with this - you have 1.5 million TBG, you make 4m a turn (260m an hour, 6.2 billion a day, 18 billion in 3 days) - are you telling me you can't outlast a rogue while hammering him and getting out of range by building sentry? The game rules apply equally to rogues as well as the sabotaged - you lose 5% max in a day, the rogue does too. You can limit the rogue by killing coverts and sabotaging what you can (which is incidentally the same percentage as the rogue sabotaged you for).

The rogue can't do anything against a large account's TBG power, especially considering rogues get crap hit and massed all the time and a typical account being hit by a rogue would be able to bank much more. In this, naysayers will propound that it's the mid accounts that suffer the most - my response is - why can't your alliance work together to hammer the rogue hard enough so he can't hold enough to damage you? And even if you can't do much immediately and it takes a few days or weeks to get the intended result, your mid accounts still CAN take being sabotaged for 1.25% of their value in a day (assuming one rogue) or 5% (five rogues), if they're active and slaying. There is nothing in the game rules that say you are entitled to a good reason to lose weapons or gold. Sometimes people do it for fun, just for kicks or they have a grouse. If you're active, you'll grow. And you, as part of an alliance, have infinite more staying power than a rogue. Rogues never last. They always get bored and quit.

IMO, the sabotage mechanisms are fairly good at the moment. Maybe you can tweak it as per the suggestions given by a lot of members, but I don't think a massive overhaul is warranted. Not having spy/sentry sabotagable would also be interesting.

Jackstar
13th August 2018, 07:50 AM
Guys... let rogues be rogues... they are in this game from years... they are that little chaos what happen in this game...

If every victim has raided that rogue every day things wont be that good for the rogues... there are missing unitedly not options for changing the game.

Offtopic:
See what`s happening in last few days.. there was half an age war... at the end few guys from one alliance get in that war.. war turned up.. 2 guys gone rogues and now whole BF is in chaos :)
Rogues pay their price somehow.. FoD mains was tended to be top rankers before week (yes.. in the cost of many others but still.. sick ambitions are ambitions aswell)

bloodpirate
13th August 2018, 09:46 AM
On that note, I'll give my opinion.

Rogues don't last very long; it is a lot of effort to maintain a spy only account. Larger accounts can simply turtle sentry and get out of range. A rogue needs to be able to maintain coverts, slay and bank very effectively to be able to grow. If you have enough raids on a rogue (they usually have 0 DA, so it doesn't cost the moon), he or she will NOT be able to hold a large spy. Now, if you can't muster 8-10 people in a really large chain to mass a rogue daily, then you have bigger problems. A lot of big accounts get sabotaged for 2-3 days and sell off because they lost 4-5 billion in value over 3 days. I don't get the issue with this - you have 1.5 million TBG, you make 4m a turn (260m an hour, 6.2 billion a day, 18 billion in 3 days) - are you telling me you can't outlast a rogue while hammering him and getting out of range by building sentry? The game rules apply equally to rogues as well as the sabotaged - you lose 5% max in a day, the rogue does too. You can limit the rogue by killing coverts and sabotaging what you can (which is incidentally the same percentage as the rogue sabotaged you for).

The rogue can't do anything against a large account's TBG power, especially considering rogues get crap hit and massed all the time and a typical account being hit by a rogue would be able to bank much more. In this, naysayers will propound that it's the mid accounts that suffer the most - my response is - why can't your alliance work together to hammer the rogue hard enough so he can't hold enough to damage you? And even if you can't do much immediately and it takes a few days or weeks to get the intended result, your mid accounts still CAN take being sabotaged for 1.25% of their value in a day (assuming one rogue) or 5% (five rogues), if they're active and slaying. There is nothing in the game rules that say you are entitled to a good reason to lose weapons or gold. Sometimes people do it for fun, just for kicks or they have a grouse. If you're active, you'll grow. And you, as part of an alliance, have infinite more staying power than a rogue. Rogues never last. They always get bored and quit.

IMO, the sabotage mechanisms are fairly good at the moment. Maybe you can tweak it as per the suggestions given by a lot of members, but I don't think a massive overhaul is warranted. Not having spy/sentry sabotagable would also be interesting.

exactly .. rogues can not sustain if raided enough

just because a person sabs you, you don't have to just sab them back. you can raid them back.

Brandonito
13th August 2018, 10:21 AM
exactly .. rogues can not sustain if raided enough

just because a person sabs you, you don't have to just sab them back. you can raid them back.

Within the context of CashLaundry and Shasta as an example? That's fine. They have a buttload of coverts and raiding them back is indeed a decent retaliatory option.

But what about the rogue who, 2 months in to the age is sitting on 15k nunchuks (and very few other weapons for other stats) as an elf with 10k UP and 200bil spy who can sab everybody but the top few accounts? Let's just say you can convince 20 people to put 200 raids on him daily. All raids are successful. I'll save you the trouble of doing the math. You'll kill 5,485 spies per day (plus or minus RNG). They'll have very little DA and take very little repair costs. The 20 people who raided on the other hand will take very high repair costs on their much higher SA, as well as merc losses since they're probably playing humans/orcs. They'll damage themselves far far more than they'll damage the 'rogue' player, and you won't even knock his TFF down, you'll just stagnate his growth by half or less. On the other hand, the rogue can sab anybody in koc, at the cost of 0 turns, at the cost of 0 repair damage (sabbing has no downside or repair costs compared to raiding), use all of his turns to maintain his spy, bank what gold he can, and only be sabbed 5% of his account per day. Very slowly a handful of the top accounts will eventually outgrow him. The rest of koc will forever stay in his range, and forever be frustrated that there's nothing meaningful they can do to retaliate as he hides behind the "maxed mechanic" for protection and only builds spy.

And what about a rogue who builds SA just to raid? They have no coverts that can even be raided.

No, raids are not the answer to rogues.

Jankster
13th August 2018, 10:22 AM
exactly .. rogues can not sustain if raided enough

just because a person sabs you, you don't have to just sab them back. you can raid them back.

Nada BP I wont raid with 114 bill SA. I want to sab those who sab me.. only fair...

As to keeping the sabrules the same in next age, no point in playing with so high activity as I do.

Hehe buy sentry someone said: I got sentry ranked 7 but get sabbed for 8,8 billion each day now by 2 sabbers, which I can sab but, they are maxed..

Its no problem for sabbers and raiders to play the demolition way.

So still make it so that you can return the favor to those who sab you pls.

RMFz-
13th August 2018, 11:46 AM
But what about the rogue who, 2 months in to the age is sitting on 15k nunchuks (and very few other weapons for other stats) as an elf with 10k UP and 200bil spy who can sab everybody but the top few accounts? Let's just say you can convince 20 people to put 200 raids on him daily. All raids are successful. I'll save you the trouble of doing the math. You'll kill 5,485 spies per day (plus or minus RNG).

I think the losses are more than that. With 20k spies some time ago, I lost 42-45 spies a raid. I was elves with no DA. With 200 raids, that's around 9000 coverts. That's a very thin margin - a few more massers, and you're going backwards. Rogues typically don't sabotage just one alliance, they sabotage without discrimination (because, well, the power is awesome). You can assume there will be multiple people massing and shit-hitting. So you're already probably going backwards.


On the other hand, the rogue can sab anybody in koc, at the cost of 0 turns, at the cost of 0 repair damage (sabbing has no downside or repair costs compared to raiding), use all of his turns to maintain his spy, bank what gold he can, and only be sabbed 5% of his account per day.

5% a day, if not replenished, means your account is finished in a few weeks.


Very slowly a handful of the top accounts will eventually outgrow him. The rest of koc will forever stay in his range, and forever be frustrated that there's nothing meaningful they can do to retaliate as he hides behind the "maxed mechanic" for protection and only builds spy.

I will grant you this, a rogue that remains active will be a pain in the butt forever. However, rogues do not remain active. They quit, most of the time. For the ones that remain, there is tremendous effort to put in to maintain and grow. And I mean actual time.

People who like to rank like to justify their stance based on the time and effort they put into the game - by clicking, banking or whatever else. Rogues, if they remain active, need to make a massive amount of effort too. Is it unbalanced? Quite likely. But count the number of people who went rogue in the first 2 months and remained active. I can't remember any, but then, I don't keep track. If you do, please share.




And what about a rogue who builds SA just to raid? They have no coverts that can even be raided.

While it can be argued that what I will say next is not an excuse - sole raiders also rarely sustain, simply because logging in to raid people daily is incredibly boring. It means you've already lost interest. Maybe your experience is different, but all the people who have threatened to raid me all age, have essentially stopped after a week.

macmoney
13th August 2018, 11:50 AM
idk where the problem is?

shasta has lost like 400k TFF in just a few days, and that's from not 0ing his DA from disorganization between all the alliances, and only like 400-500 raids.

And these accounts had huge boosts from multiple alliances under them at start of age to over inflate them. Only like 3 days into taking them down and they've seen huge losses. Its just a matter of time..... just like any other rouge, regardless of #of people that can sab, or how much they can sab, raid etc.

Brandonito
13th August 2018, 12:30 PM
I think the losses are more than that. With 20k spies some time ago, I lost 42-45 spies a raid. I was elves with no DA. With 200 raids, that's around 9000 coverts. That's a very thin margin - a few more massers, and you're going backwards. Rogues typically don't sabotage just one alliance, they sabotage without discrimination (because, well, the power is awesome). You can assume there will be multiple people massing and shit-hitting. So you're already probably going backwards.

The losses aren't more than that - I have the exact formulas and did the math. Keep in mind not every raid will do full damage, because usually they'll only need to hold spies once per day during their sab run, and every time they get raided they'll have less spies available to be killed. It's 5485 spies +/- some koc variance. Ask any rogue this age - Other than Shasta/CashLaundry none of them got even close to 200 raids a day. The ones I spoke to got less than 50. I was being generous, Nobody wants to raid because 1) it gives shitty experience and 2) they take huge repair costs in exchange for 3) minimal damage if the rogue isn't huge. And let's imagine a world in which you could kill all of their unit production per day? They still have clicking. They still have 2 months worth of TFF built up. They still have 20 attacks a day to sustain themselves with. They still have the ability to invest 99% of their account into spy whereas everybody else is trying to have a more balanced account.


5% a day, if not replenished, means your account is finished in a few weeks.

Wrong. They don't go down 5% a day, they can have 5% a day sabbed. If they have 15,000 nuns they can be sabbed for 750 nuns a day. But let's say they have 300k tff 2 months in, not a very difficult threshold to reach. Let's say they bank a lowly 12 hours a day after getting lowhit a lot. That's already 432mil of 750mil losses replaced, and that's not even getting to the 20 attacks they can do per day because after sabbing 100 different people it cost them a total of 0 turns to do so. They don't go DOWN 5% because their AAT's are very low and efficient because they don't invest into sentry SA or DA, they stagnate, or even grow. No rogues account gets finished unless they give up. It's super easy to sustain and hide behind the maxed mechanics to protect yourself. I agree - rogues spend a lot of time doing what they're doing day in and day out, but so does everybody else. And it feels SHITTY when someone you've done nothing to decides to go on a rampage, only to find them constantly maxed and there's nothing to be done in return. The idea that we have to hope and pray that they'll just get bored/go inactive rather than actually balance them is silly. They're too powerful.


While it can be argued that what I will say next is not an excuse - sole raiders also rarely sustain, simply because logging in to raid people daily is incredibly boring. It means you've already lost interest. Maybe your experience is different, but all the people who have threatened to raid me all age, have essentially stopped after a week.

You've never played a big account. Ask anybody who has - there are people every age who simply create an account to raid anybody who builds DA because they know they can have a huge effect on them with 5 minutes of effort per day. Some do it to help their alliance vs their enemies, but most do it just to grief people. I've done it myself. They have an even easier time sustaining because they only need 1% of someones DA in SA, and because even with a super low SA it still deals very high repair costs to high DA targets.

RMFz-
13th August 2018, 01:30 PM
You've never played a big account.

I have lot of problems with your math and assumptions, but since you played the "big account" card, I see no point.

snap
13th August 2018, 02:30 PM
Is there any solution to Ghost Sabbing ? When your sentry is not high enough to detect who sabbed..so you cannot take any action...raids or even reporting to one's alliance..Can that be logged or something ?

Any solution to this ? Should there not be a notification in the intelligence that particular player has sabbed you even if your sentry is low compared to the spy of the player

krieper
13th August 2018, 02:55 PM
Any solution to this ? Should there not be a notification in the intelligence that particular player has sabbed you even if your sentry is low compared to the spy of the player

Ghosting is part of the game... if you want to know who is sabbing you, get more sentries or buy more sentry :-)

The_Sovereign
13th August 2018, 07:28 PM
Ghosting is part of the game... if you want to know who is sabbing you, get more sentries or buy more sentry :-)

The only thing that needs to be fixed is the SA/DA ratio for a successful raid. If I can create an account today, slay a little gold, and then can in turn do billions of damage to people who have played 6 months while my aat is like 3, there is something wrong.

Karina
13th August 2018, 08:19 PM
The losses aren't more than that - I have the exact formulas and did the math. Keep in mind not every raid will do full damage, because usually they'll only need to hold spies once per day during their sab run, and every time they get raided they'll have less spies available to be killed. It's 5485 spies +/- some koc variance. Ask any rogue this age - Other than Shasta/CashLaundry none of them got even close to 200 raids a day. The ones I spoke to got less than 50. I was being generous, Nobody wants to raid because 1) it gives shitty experience and 2) they take huge repair costs in exchange for 3) minimal damage if the rogue isn't huge. And let's imagine a world in which you could kill all of their unit production per day? They still have clicking. They still have 2 months worth of TFF built up. They still have 20 attacks a day to sustain themselves with. They still have the ability to invest 99% of their account into spy whereas everybody else is trying to have a more balanced account.



Wrong. They don't go down 5% a day, they can have 5% a day sabbed. If they have 15,000 nuns they can be sabbed for 750 nuns a day. But let's say they have 300k tff 2 months in, not a very difficult threshold to reach. Let's say they bank a lowly 12 hours a day after getting lowhit a lot. That's already 432mil of 750mil losses replaced, and that's not even getting to the 20 attacks they can do per day because after sabbing 100 different people it cost them a total of 0 turns to do so. They don't go DOWN 5% because their AAT's are very low and efficient because they don't invest into sentry SA or DA, they stagnate, or even grow. No rogues account gets finished unless they give up. It's super easy to sustain and hide behind the maxed mechanics to protect yourself. I agree - rogues spend a lot of time doing what they're doing day in and day out, but so does everybody else. And it feels SHITTY when someone you've done nothing to decides to go on a rampage, only to find them constantly maxed and there's nothing to be done in return. The idea that we have to hope and pray that they'll just get bored/go inactive rather than actually balance them is silly. They're too powerful.



You've never played a big account. Ask anybody who has - there are people every age who simply create an account to raid anybody who builds DA because they know they can have a huge effect on them with 5 minutes of effort per day. Some do it to help their alliance vs their enemies, but most do it just to grief people. I've done it myself. They have an even easier time sustaining because they only need 1% of someones DA in SA, and because even with a super low SA it still deals very high repair costs to high DA targets.

You are making up numbers to suit your flawed logic. "let's say...blah blah blah". The real issue here is that you want to Bank, Rank, Click and feel all powerful, but then someone comes along and bursts your bubble. This is kings of chaos, not kings of banking, not kings of clicking and not kings of ranking. Unlike you, pulling numbers out of your ass, I have ACTUAL numbers on losses based on my own account and your math and logic are completely flawed and waaaaayyyyy off. Which also begs the question, when you say you "have the formula", was it given to you by an admin in the game, or it is you just guessing based on imaginary numbers?

I will also say, this beta age isn't necessarily one that can be used as a good starting or reference point for the changes made as the real age won't give us 50M gold nor 5k UP at start up. It won't skew wizards to benefit only the castles in game. Ya'll are just upset that the playing field started more evenly than you are used to and people took it upon themselves to test the mechanics of the game.

To really test how the current mechanisms work is during the new age. If things change, it should go back to what was normal when sab was first introduced, which was spy/sentry tools unsabbable and all other weapons were fair game. There were fail safes in place, so you couldn't simply max a person in 1 day, there was still a cap on the amount of damage you could do, but everyone had a chance to sab. This game isn't supposed to be complicated...let's K.I.S.S....Keep It Simple, Sweetheart.

Tanouye
13th August 2018, 09:44 PM
You are making up numbers to suit your flawed logic. "let's say...blah blah blah". The real issue here is that you want to Bank, Rank, Click and feel all powerful, but then someone comes along and bursts your bubble. This is kings of chaos, not kings of banking, not kings of clicking and not kings of ranking. Unlike you, pulling numbers out of your ass, I have ACTUAL numbers on losses based on my own account and your math and logic are completely flawed and waaaaayyyyy off. Which also begs the question, when you say you "have the formula", was it given to you by an admin in the game, or it is you just guessing based on imaginary numbers?

If you have a basic understanding of math it's pretty easy to derive the formulas the game is based on to a high level of accuracy. Also, nobody with 20k spies as an elf is losing 9k spies in only 200 raids, if you have logs to disprove that feel free to post them (but you don't).


I will also say, this beta age isn't necessarily one that can be used as a good starting or reference point for the changes made as the real age won't give us 50M gold nor 5k UP at start up. It won't skew wizards to benefit only the castles in game. Ya'll are just upset that the playing field started more evenly than you are used to and people took it upon themselves to test the mechanics of the game.

To really test how the current mechanisms work is during the new age. If things change, it should go back to what was normal when sab was first introduced, which was spy/sentry tools unsabbable and all other weapons were fair game. There were fail safes in place, so you couldn't simply max a person in 1 day, there was still a cap on the amount of damage you could do, but everyone had a chance to sab. This game isn't supposed to be complicated...let's K.I.S.S....Keep It Simple, Sweetheart.

I never really understood the whole "test the mechanics of the game" argument, this is an incredibly simple game with no complex interactions whatsoever. While I agree this age is not representative at all of what will occur next age given how much the mechanics changed over the age, you don't really have to "test" changes to this game. It's pretty easy to see how changes will affect the game just by looking at the numbers. Obviously a lot of people were going to start complaining once sabs didn't require turns and you could only lose 5% of your value to sabs a day, it was just a matter of when someone would fully abuse the changes.

Karina
13th August 2018, 10:36 PM
If you have a basic understanding of math it's pretty easy to derive the formulas the game is based on to a high level of accuracy. Also, nobody with 20k spies as an elf is losing 9k spies in only 200 raids, if you have logs to disprove that feel free to post them (but you don't).

I never really understood the whole "test the mechanics of the game" argument, this is an incredibly simple game with no complex interactions whatsoever. While I agree this age is not representative at all of what will occur next age given how much the mechanics changed over the age, you don't really have to "test" changes to this game. It's pretty easy to see how changes will affect the game just by looking at the numbers. Obviously a lot of people were going to start complaining once sabs didn't require turns and you could only lose 5% of your value to sabs a day, it was just a matter of when someone would fully abuse the changes.


It wasn't a high level of accuracy as the numbers he posted reflected nothing near to what I lose/gain. His approximations were off and considering I have first hand knowledge based on what i lose every raid, every sab, and what I gain - it's easy for me to see the numbers he posted are off by quite a bit. Also, He shouldn't imply he has any formula that's 100% accurate if he's using more of an approximation.

If the game had no changes, then this would be true. The game has changed from when I first played and from the start of the age. So of course there will always be some sort of interest to discover what's useful and not and see how those changes affect the game. Is RNG different? # spies to send. Sure it's a simply game, but there is still a little thought involved. And for such a simple game, a lot of people seem to complain much about it because they don't like a certain account type.

RMFz-
13th August 2018, 11:42 PM
If you have a basic understanding of math it's pretty easy to derive the formulas the game is based on to a high level of accuracy. Also, nobody with 20k spies as an elf is losing 9k spies in only 200 raids, if you have logs to disprove that feel free to post them (but you don't).

If it's so easy, why don't your calculations reflect reality? Here's an example from 2 weeks ago:


Your troops inflict 940,466 damage on the enemy!
The enemy sustains 278 casualties!

XXXXX's forces attack and inflict 8,146,696,205 damage on your army!
Your army sustains 22 casualties!

22 Untrained Mercenaries were killed in action.
69 Spies were killed in action.

This was when I had approx 29,500 spies. Based on the above attack, with your superior math skills, you would know that 20,000 coverts would approximate 45-50 coverts loss per raid.

kaoz
13th August 2018, 11:43 PM
Just to give people a rough idea of a random full raid earlier on a top 10 account costed me (being Undead):

21,562 Merc's killed @ 4,500 gold = 97,029,000 gold.
56 million SA damage (Low SA @ 8,635,322,427)

After being sabbed by his "rouge" officer for:
64 Blackpowder Missiles = 64.000.000

Total damage on me: 217,029,000 / Hourly income: 82,391,820

If anything Raids should be much more rewarding!

Brandonito
14th August 2018, 01:46 AM
If it's so easy, why don't your calculations reflect reality? Here's an example from 2 weeks ago:

Your troops inflict 940,466 damage on the enemy!
The enemy sustains 278 casualties!

XXXXX's forces attack and inflict 8,146,696,205 damage on your army!
Your army sustains 22 casualties!

22 Untrained Mercenaries were killed in action.
69 Spies were killed in action.

This was when I had approx 29,500 spies. Based on the above attack, with your superior math skills, you would know that 20,000 coverts would approximate 45-50 coverts loss per raid.

There's a random koc generated number that multiplies a number between 0.5-1.5% in the formula. i.e. from one raid to the next it could give you a raid with 3x less damage or 3x more damage. Basing a number off of 1 raid won't give you an accurate measure.

However let's pretend your raid is gospel for what losses would be.

29,500 spies lost you 69 spies. My example used 15,000 spies, so 15,000/29,500*69=35 spies lost on the first raid. This implies that you lose 35/15,000=.00233 which is .233% of your spies each raid as an elf (which is actually remarkably accurate, the real average is .225%).

So, using your number of .223%, after 200 raids you'll end up with 15,000 * (1-.00233)^200 = 9,407 spies left alive. Which tells you 15,000-9,407= 5,593 spies died from 200 successful raids according to your own raid log. The number I posted earlier today was 5,485 - remarkably close, no?

So no Katrina, I wasn't estimating. Why would I post such a specific number (5,485) if I was just estimating? It's accurate down to the last spy, though it can vary slightly +/- because of the randomly generated number that koc generates.

Endtime
14th August 2018, 01:48 AM
Answer to rouges is simple, sab protection stays as it is, and for every successful sab of 5 turns, sabber open his armory for 1 turn (or 0.5 or smth).
Ez, and effective. That resolve 2 things - will protect nubz that can't retaliate, and help to eliminate rouges armory faster.

Yea, that sure sounds easy but it is not.


Any solution to this ? Should there not be a notification in the intelligence that particular player has sabbed you even if your sentry is low compared to the spy of the player

So you want to know when you are sabbed all the time? Where is the fun in that.

Tanouye
14th August 2018, 06:02 AM
If it's so easy, why don't your calculations reflect reality? Here's an example from 2 weeks ago:

This was when I had approx 29,500 spies. Based on the above attack, with your superior math skills, you would know that 20,000 coverts would approximate 45-50 coverts loss per raid.

Cherry-picking a single data point does not mean that, you still won't lose 9k spies to 200 raids with only 20k spies as an elf.

macmoney
14th August 2018, 06:48 AM
Just to give people a rough idea of a random full raid earlier on a top 10 account costed me (being Undead):

21,562 Merc's killed @ 4,500 gold = 97,029,000 gold.
56 million SA damage (Low SA @ 8,635,322,427)

After being sabbed by his "rouge" officer for:
64 Blackpowder Missiles = 64.000.000

Total damage on me: 217,029,000 / Hourly income: 82,391,820

If anything Raids should be much more rewarding!

In 3 day's he's lost over 700k tff now.... I'd say raids are doing pretty good.

Also you're looking at this as a 1v1 battle, when usually rouges (1 or 2 accounts) are against a collective alliance. Which in that case, his 700k TFF loss is more damaging then 2.5hrs of damage.

Again, killing off rogues in a few hours would suck... They also shouldn't beable to chain bigs for weeks on end, but we're only a few days into someone chaining. Doesn't make sense to completely change game dynamics just cause of 1 alliances choice to chain. Especially when said chain has killed off their accounts so quickly. If anything this should just be another reminder on why rankers Turtle.

MrHARDCORE
14th August 2018, 06:50 AM
Just one thing to note.. as the player base changes the numbers will have to change if it took off on social media and one high school class joined as an alliance... 2000 raids would annilalate any account. With the amount of accounts there are now I think things are reasonably balanced. Change SA/DA ratio I can easily raid all top accounts after playing for 1 day.

kaoz
14th August 2018, 07:40 AM
In 3 day's he's lost over 700k tff now.... I'd say raids are doing pretty good.

Also you're looking at this as a 1v1 battle, when usually rouges (1 or 2 accounts) are against a collective alliance. Which in that case, his 700k TFF loss is more damaging then 2.5hrs of damage.


Not sure if we're talking about the same target, SR also have rouges sabbing peacefull rankers like me, I hold their commander responsible for their actions if there's nothing to gain from the offender.

macmoney
14th August 2018, 08:09 AM
Not sure if we're talking about the same target, SR also have rouges sabbing peacefull rankers like me, I hold their commander responsible for their actions if there's nothing to gain from the offender.

That'y why we've typically warred SR over these matters after SR's rich history of sending chainers and funding them.

bloodpirate
14th August 2018, 09:49 AM
i remember back in the day, when you couldn't sab spy/sentry tools .. back then, sabbed items didn't disappear until they were used. i would love to steal the items i sab from people, would make elves super awesome

Brandonito
14th August 2018, 09:54 AM
For the record - my complaints have nothing to do with FoD doing their kamikaze run. While it's great that we can bring down Ling and Rogue, they're not a good representation of "the average rogue". Some of these complaints I and others have had for a long time but we didn't have an active admin to do anything about it (or a specific thread in which to discuss it). And some of the complaints are due to the beta changes increasing the power of rogues. For example:

1) The removal of sabs costing turns allowing 'rogues' and 'griefers' to go after all alliances and koc rather than someone they're having an issue with, and still being able to use 100% of their turns to slay for gold and sustain themselves.
2) The lowering of raid turn cost from 25 turns to 5 turns allowing griefers to raid many more people without effecting their turns, so they're able to maintain.
3) Lowering the maximum armory loss in 24 hours from 10% to 5% which means rogues/grierfers can only be sabbed for half as much per day before their protection kicks in - and only 5 people get to retaliate instead of the 20 it used to be.
4) Rogues can sab 2x as much damage (10 turns before beta, 20 turns now per 24 hours). For 0 turns. While only being able to lose half as much.

macmoney
14th August 2018, 11:14 AM
For the record - my complaints have nothing to do with FoD doing their kamikaze run. While it's great that we can bring down Ling and Rogue, they're not a good representation of "the average rogue". Some of these complaints I and others have had for a long time but we didn't have an active admin to do anything about it (or a specific thread in which to discuss it). And some of the complaints are due to the beta changes increasing the power of rogues. For example:

1) The removal of sabs costing turns allowing 'rogues' and 'griefers' to go after all alliances and koc rather than someone they're having an issue with, and still being able to use 100% of their turns to slay for gold and sustain themselves.
2) The lowering of raid turn cost from 25 turns to 5 turns allowing griefers to raid many more people without effecting their turns, so they're able to maintain.
3) Lowering the maximum armory loss in 24 hours from 10% to 5% which means rogues/grierfers can only be sabbed for half as much per day before their protection kicks in - and only 5 people get to retaliate instead of the 20 it used to be.
4) Rogues can sab 2x as much damage (10 turns before beta, 20 turns now per 24 hours). For 0 turns. While only being able to lose half as much.

Your only point that actually helps you is the 4th one, and possibly 1st one too.

1) lowering Turns on attacking means those that got sabbed can slay a lot more, meaning they get back what was sabbed a lot quicker.
2) lowering the maximum armory means less sabbed from those with a lot of rouges IE when SR had 17 rouges on us at one point a few ages back
3) The current state of the alliances are about 10 active alliances that are about 20-30 accounts deep, no single alliance can really get 20 people to sab out side of SR, even then its tuff. bumping it would only benefit one alliance, yours....
4) sabbing without losing turns is only beneficial when alliances such as yourself or others like DA is formed for players that have hundreds to go through.
5) lowering the maximum armory loss is what most rankers wanted.... now its only a problem cause there are some rouges that you cant beat down fast enough... can't have one with out the other.

My recommendation would be more around alliances should actually have a policy they go by, and/or stop pissing players off, and you wont have rouges, or as many rogues. Mirror policy's, sabbing peoples main for 59min gold, etc. pretty obvious that alliances should change their attitudes in bfmodding rather then changing game mechanics. You recruit a player, your responsible for their actions.

krieper
14th August 2018, 11:43 AM
Rogues don't get caused by policies. Rogues get caused because these individuals or groups of players decide to do so.

Reasons may vary, bfpolicies can be one of them. But it is pretty obvious that many people posting in here don't post with the best intentions for the game, just their own agenda.

Admin and mods will have to decide, players should give pro's and con's.

Brandonito
14th August 2018, 11:47 AM
1) lowering Turns on attacking means those that got sabbed can slay a lot more, meaning they get back what was sabbed a lot quicker.

They don't slay more gold because people hold less gold because 1) people have 2x as many attacks to do so they attack for less and 2) there are no longer any alternative turn dumps (conquests/sabbing) so you can only spend turns on attacking.

After paying for the repair/merc margin you don't make any more gold than you used to. However, someone roguing who used to have to spend a lot of their turns on sabbing rather than slaying, have more turns freed up to steal more gold...

Also, you lose 2x as much to rogues (10->20 turn change), so you definitely don't get back what was sabbed a lot quicker.


2) lowering the maximum armory means less sabbed from those with a lot of rouges IE when SR had 17 rouges on us at one point a few ages back

This is plainly false. Rogues are individuals. They don't max people. This doesn't help anybody vs. rogues. It only helps rogues hide behind maxed mechanics and help them maintain.


3) The current state of the alliances are about 10 active alliances that are about 20-30 accounts deep, no single alliance can really get 20 people to sab out side of SR, even then its tuff. bumping it would only benefit one alliance, yours....

Not sure where you get your information from, but I was kicked out of SR 2 ages ago. I sabbed more gold away from SR than anybody else in koc has this age. I agree with you though, no single alliance can get 20 people to sab. It's not a bad thing to slightly lower the amount of people it takes to max someone due to the shrinking player base. This was easily done by increasing max sabs per 24hrs from 10->20 turns. There was no reason to lower the maximum armory loss as well. Lowering it to 5 was way too extreme and has made warring shitty.


4) sabbing without losing turns is only beneficial when alliances such as yourself or others like DA is formed for players that have hundreds to go through.

Again, I'm not in SR. Sabbing without losing turns only encourages people who decide to go rogue against an alliance to get maxed, realize they can't lose anymore than they're already losing, then go after everybody else in koc because there's no downside. I'm not trying to get sabotage turns reintroduced as Bon made it clear that wouldn't happen - I'm only trying to get protections put in place to stop the abuse that is now happening due to this change.


5) lowering the maximum armory loss is what most rankers wanted.... now its only a problem cause there are some rouges that you cant beat down fast enough... can't have one with out the other.

I've never heard a ranker ask for a lower maximum armory loss. Rogues have always been powerful and 'rankers' are aware of this. Nobody asked for the maximum armory loss to be lowered, we have in fact asked for it to be raised multiple times this age due to rogues. Please don't make things up...


My recommendation would be more around alliances should actually have a policy they go by, and/or stop pissing players off, and you wont have rouges, or as many rogues. Mirror policy's, sabbing peoples main for 59min gold, etc. pretty obvious that alliances should change their attitudes in bfmodding rather then changing game mechanics. You recruit a player, your responsible for their actions.

I was asked by a friend who is playing solo to point out that he is/was getting hit by 3 different rogues at the same time this age. No bfpolicies involved. Just random mayhem due to broken game mechanics.

A lot of people in this game seem to like to pretend they're hot shit because they make fun of 'rankers' trying to build up a nice account. They think they're anti-establishment cool kids who rally against bfpolicies and big alliances and shit. They get their kicks by causing grief to random internet strangers, and calling them cowards because these people want to try to grow a decent account and don't like to randomly be sabbed for no reason without being able to retaliate. I'd argue that the cowards are the ones that hide behind max loss mechanics in this game to fuck with people when they know nobody can do anything in return. Sorry to break it to you, but these people aren't rebels.

krieper
16th August 2018, 04:42 AM
Any news as to admin/mods see this issue?

MFnBonsai
16th August 2018, 05:18 AM
You will have to wait and see in the new Era....

Mielinski
16th August 2018, 10:57 AM
So we haven't really seen much last months in this beta of new things. Just some teasers.

I hope everything will work fine from the start in the new era.

bloodpirate
16th August 2018, 07:08 PM
my take on rogues. in a whole age, there might be 2 or 3 people who plan on going rogue without cause. they will last a month or two and get bored. all alliances they come in contact with, should be able to destroy them by sabbing and raiding daily. hundreds of people raiding the rogues daily will bring them down, there shouldn't be anyone who doesn't support their alliance by sitting on their thumbs and not pull their weight.

the rogues who are created during an age (because of bf policies) might be more determined to last longer, the old revenge attitude. they will probably target a single alliance, and therefore have a lot less people raiding them. it is possible to max sab them daily and max raid them daily. they can be destroyed, even if they max click and sell all non essential weapons/tools to UP .. just takes determination and dedication .. in other words, help your alliance.

as for creating wars because of said bf policies, even warring a small alliance of dedicated rogues, it might be best to truce early on, or they will have a huge impact on your alliances final standing. of course what the new era brings us will have a lot to do with how all this turns out

MFnBonsai
16th August 2018, 08:38 PM
of course what the new era brings us will have a lot to do with how all this turns out

See what happens next age with what we have looked at.... while i am interested in everyones opinion which is why i made this thread i made no mention of anything being implemented from posts here into the new Era....

We will run a short 4 month Era to see how things go and well more changes will come each and every Era after that.... from Era to Era things will get removed and added so no set Era will be the same.... well thats the plan anyway....

bloodpirate
17th August 2018, 12:40 AM
great .. best thing is to keep people guessing, then trying the new additions/subtractions. chaos.

Karina
17th August 2018, 09:31 PM
So much whining and crying by rankers over a few sabbers. Probably the same people complaining about these sabbers because of their own BF policies. Sabbers never needed an excuse to sab. It is funny that now that raiding is so strong and sabbing has changed where sabbers are maxed, there is so much whining about "we can't do anything! boo hoo hoo".

The game mechanics currently mean that everyone can enjoy a game to play as they see fit. Sabbers get maxed and lose stuff daily. Big lose stuff daily and get hurt by raids, but not enough to prevent growth from a few random sabbers/raiders. No matter what gets changed, these same people will cry fowl and whine about something else in game that needs to be changed.

I'm going to throw out my idea again (cuz I like it and hey, this forum is for trying to convince admins to implement them).....Spy/Sentry tools should remain unsabbable and all other tools sabbable, like ages of past. I won't even be mad at bringing back "breaking" of items instead of immediate loss.

krieper
18th August 2018, 04:46 AM
Keep it up and you won't have any more rankers to sab.

If the goal of admin is to revamp the playerbase, I suggest to not only listen to people who enjoy sabbing, but also those that don't like being sabbed for the sole reason of existing.

The playerbase is small enough as it is, and while I'm trying to motivate people to play again in this new era with active mods and admin, I've heard many that will evaluate their decision to play/not play based on these particular game mechanics.

Maybe it's because I know more former rankers than former rogues. Who knows.

bloodpirate
18th August 2018, 09:48 AM
i think that if an alliance has a bf policy that they want others to follow, THEY SHOULD FOLLOW IT THEMSELVES. nothing ticks off people more than to follow someones bf policy and find those people don't follow their own. and someone explain to me, what is a low hit? and why is it when someone "low hits" someone, they get max sabbed with the threat that "if you retaliate, you will be max sabbed daily till the end of the era"? don't like rogues? don't make them

Brandonito
18th August 2018, 11:09 AM
It's funny. In the ~4 years I've been playing KoC you are in fact the ONLY person in all of koc that I know of that has approved someone (many people) to be max sabbed by their alliance for a 'low hit', BP. You're literally just making shit up at this point.

If you don't think bfpolicies are good for the game? That's fine. If you don't want to follow them? That's cool. But if the best you can do is to feign ignorance just to make shit up to somehow prove this...? Dude.

Edit: Slightly hypocritical of me for posting, but can this thread please not devolve in to the ten millionth bf policy argument we've all already seen/had? I know it's a somewhat relevant topic, but we all know it won't lead anywhere fruitful.
Everybody has already decided they're right and has no interest in having a fact-driven discussion, they just want to yell at the other person and call them stupid.

krieper
18th August 2018, 11:38 AM
i think that if an alliance has a bf policy that they want others to follow, THEY SHOULD FOLLOW IT THEMSELVES. nothing ticks off people more than to follow someones bf policy and find those people don't follow their own. and someone explain to me, what is a low hit? and why is it when someone "low hits" someone, they get max sabbed with the threat that "if you retaliate, you will be max sabbed daily till the end of the era"? don't like rogues? don't make them

You'd have rogues with or without bfpolicies. And point me to one bfpolicy where you get approved by the entire alliance for stealing not enough gold... that simply doesn't exist. Those kind of approvals happen when sabotage is involved (you can find that good or bad, I don't really like it) or when you chain/mass to damage the alliance on purpose (which I find justified).

Also, I have no problems with someone who decides to rogue. I've been on both sides of this. When I had top 10 DA i got massed daily, in later ages I raided and sabbed others as a rogue myself. However, due to the game mechanics being adjusted (raids less turns combined with no turns for sabs) in favor of rogues, and lessening the damage possible a day to individual accounts (less sabbers) the balance shifted very much in favor of those that play this game to damage others, rather than those that want to build an account in peace.

This effect always is more pronounced at the end of an age, as AAT's of the sabvictim generally is higher than on another moment in the age, but with these changed game mechanics, rogues become more effective, which means more people are affected and irritation is more widespread than in previous ages.

If admins want to discourage the "ranker"-way of playing this game, it is a valid choice of direction. Especially banking has been discouraged, which I think is a good thing. However, ranking and banking isn't the same thing. Rankers usually are the more active players, together with the waralliances. If too many players get discouraged by seeing their way of playing being made more difficult and even impossible, then you'll see more players quit.

Things that make players quit, I think, are the following:

Out of the hand of admins:
- Textbased games are a thing of the past
- people get older and don't want to play this game anymore

In the hand of admins:
- game mechanics
- admin activity

In the hand of players:
- bullying
- no chance of accomplishing certain goals
- not being able to cope with chaos

Granted: destruction, war, sabs, ... are part of the game, however, players hiding behind certain game mechanics are most certainly causing people to quit.

This may or may not be adressed by admins, but denying it is pretty much silly, just as hijacking this thread by making it about bfpolicies (player decisions) rather than game mechanics (admin decisions).

MFnBonsai
18th August 2018, 08:42 PM
With the time that is left of this age there will be no changes seen ingame.... The rest of this age will play out like it is....

As for the new Era.... that is our focus right now with such little time left we are looking at what has been said here and other threads....

There will be changes to current game mechanics that we believe will balance the game.... good or bad we won’t know till the new Era is in full swing but it will only be 4 months.... we could have decided to run a 3 month age to check how a real age stands up to changes we have made in this beta along with what we have in store for next but 4 will give us a good idea....

The way I look at KoC now is that you have all played numerous ages with little to no tweaks because of inactive admins.... everyone would demand new changes and not get a thing.... everyone would beg for ages to end and it took me months and months of continuous emails to the admins to get it to end and when they saw fit they ended it without giving players enough of a warning.... I could go on and on with the issues we had previously couldn’t I?

Now you have active admins/mods.... you have people that care about the game and the community.... you will have changes every Era and notice of when the age will start and finish....

All we really ask in return is continued support from the players by playing the game.... bring new people in so that there is new blood to be spilled.... and regardless of if you don’t like a change try and adapt and give feedback throughout the ages so we can then make adjustments within the game.... what we want to do to the game or what you expect won’t work if you crack the perverbials and pack up your bat and ball and go home so to speak....

Mielinski
19th August 2018, 02:47 AM
With the time that is left of this age there will be no changes seen ingame.... The rest of this age will play out like it is....

As for the new Era.... that is our focus right now with such little time left we are looking at what has been said here and other threads....

There will be changes to current game mechanics that we believe will balance the game.... good or bad we won’t know till the new Era is in full swing but it will only be 4 months.... we could have decided to run a 3 month age to check how a real age stands up to changes we have made in this beta along with what we have in store for next but 4 will give us a good idea....

The way I look at KoC now is that you have all played numerous ages with little to no tweaks because of inactive admins.... everyone would demand new changes and not get a thing.... everyone would beg for ages to end and it took me months and months of continuous emails to the admins to get it to end and when they saw fit they ended it without giving players enough of a warning.... I could go on and on with the issues we had previously couldn’t I?

Now you have active admins/mods.... you have people that care about the game and the community.... you will have changes every Era and notice of when the age will start and finish....

All we really ask in return is continued support from the players by playing the game.... bring new people in so that there is new blood to be spilled.... and regardless of if you don’t like a change try and adapt and give feedback throughout the ages so we can then make adjustments within the game.... what we want to do to the game or what you expect won’t work if you crack the perverbials and pack up your bat and ball and go home so to speak....

Yes bon, but bringing new players to the game means I bring in people in know. People that I know are people that I meet daily, weekly, monthly,... This means we cross ip's at some certain point and players are being punished way to hard for that. If you want to evolve the game you got to evolve with the time and rules.

It's almost impossible to do that now.

xeros2.0
19th August 2018, 02:48 AM
Well, it's been a few days since I've been on GUA and I'm amazed at the amount of tripe being spouted!

A) Why are we all crying about how things are currently? Admins have repeatedly said that there will be changes (both big and small) next age. Chances are it will be completely different from the way things are now.
B) IT'S A BETA!!! This is how the admins test new things and gauge the results.
C) Learn to adapt people. This age has been the best I've played for a while because it's actually forced people to think about and adjust their strategy rather than do the same old crap day in and day out.

That being said... 1 week, 5 days, 7 hours to go. Can't wait to see what Era 1 has in store for us all :D

krieper
19th August 2018, 04:29 AM
Well, it's been a few days since I've been on GUA and I'm amazed at the amount of tripe being spouted!

A) Why are we all crying about how things are currently? Admins have repeatedly said that there will be changes (both big and small) next age. Chances are it will be completely different from the way things are now.
B) IT'S A BETA!!! This is how the admins test new things and gauge the results.
C) Learn to adapt people. This age has been the best I've played for a while because it's actually forced people to think about and adjust their strategy rather than do the same old crap day in and day out.

That being said... 1 week, 5 days, 7 hours to go. Can't wait to see what Era 1 has in store for us all :D

It's a suggestionthread, ofc things are being said and discussed ^^ sometimes more heated or biased than it should.

As for adminstuff, bon, you're doing an awesome job. From 0.001 to 100, compared to previous ages. I'm sure for some players (like myself), that is enough reason to play next era. Others will check the changes and decide after. Just how the world spins I guess.

The_Sovereign
19th August 2018, 11:15 AM
At this point, I dont consider FOD to be rogues, just trolls taking advantage of a broken game mechanic; a garbage alliance full of bullies.

RDX_Star
19th August 2018, 11:24 AM
The funny thing is FOD have actually helped me, I was bored, not using turns and then they started sabbing

Now I have a lot more SOV than before - Thanks FOD!

bloodpirate
19th August 2018, 12:12 PM
At this point, I dont consider FOD to be rogues, just trolls taking advantage of a broken system; a garbage alliance full of bullies.

cry me a river, build a bridge and get over with it.

we are just trying to adapt a playing style to the new game mechanics. our new tactics must be working if you are unhappy with us.

we are entertaining if nothing else.

on a different note, i need more turns.

thanks RDX_Star.

lordkill
19th August 2018, 03:44 PM
Keep it up and you won't have any more rankers to sab.

If the goal of admin is to revamp the playerbase, I suggest to not only listen to people who enjoy sabbing, but also those that don't like being sabbed for the sole reason of existing.

The playerbase is small enough as it is, and while I'm trying to motivate people to play again in this new era with active mods and admin, I've heard many that will evaluate their decision to play/not play based on these particular game mechanics.

Maybe it's because I know more former rankers than former rogues. Who knows.

I agree, I've had 2 officers quit because of the relentless sabs (they didn't do anything to provoke them) and not being able to sab back. Seems another will follow shortly. I've lost interest in playing myself.

Players who enjoy ranking and play casually don't like getting picked on for no reason, and they really don't like not being able to hit back. It's doesn't make for a very fun experience. This should be the number one priority going into to next age.

bloodpirate
19th August 2018, 04:06 PM
I agree, I've had 2 officers quit because of the relentless sabs (they didn't do anything to provoke them) and not being able to sab back. Seems another will follow shortly. I've lost interest in playing myself.

Players who enjoy ranking and play casually don't like getting picked on for no reason, and they really don't like not being able to hit back. It's doesn't make for a very fun experience. This should be the number one priority going into to next age.

what would you change to the game mechanics to combat this?

it sounds like you are mad at yourself for not teaching them how to war. did you teach them to only click to grow big and give you trickle and teach them to log in daily so you would get officer bonus for you?

and on a side note, has your alliance ever approved anyone? if so why? does your alliance have a bf policy which you follow faithfully?

lordkill
19th August 2018, 06:03 PM
what would you change to the game mechanics to combat this?

it sounds like you are mad at yourself for not teaching them how to war. did you teach them to only click to grow big and give you trickle and teach them to log in daily so you would get officer bonus for you?

and on a side note, has your alliance ever approved anyone? if so why? does your alliance have a bf policy which you follow faithfully?


My suggestion is in my post, to allow more damage against rogues who are currently able to sab with impunity. As far as exact changes to be made, I'm not knowledgeable enough to know how exactly this should be done but I wouldn't mind going back to how things used to be last age. For many ages when someone went rogue they were essentially giving up their account while dealing some big damage for a while, but they wouldn't be able to continue all age like they've been able to now.

You must realize that not everyone in this game wants to war? Acting like warring in this game is some sort of hard to teach skill gave me a good laugh. Some just aren't interested and would rather build up their account without major conflicts, certainly ones that they can't resolve or fight back.

I have been in alliances in the past, however this rogue issue began when I've been a solo player without a commander or alliance and I am still without one.

Vredesbyrd
20th August 2018, 12:15 AM
I agree, I've had 2 officers quit because of the relentless sabs (they didn't do anything to provoke them) and not being able to sab back. Seems another will follow shortly. I've lost interest in playing myself.

Players who enjoy ranking and play casually don't like getting picked on for no reason, and they really don't like not being able to hit back. It's doesn't make for a very fun experience. This should be the number one priority going into to next age.

Not Relentless sabs I hope, you probably ment FoD sabs? We have no control on what they are doing.
As for Relentless we usually dont sab for no reason and if you ask for sabs to stop they should. If not ask someone else. We certainly do not want players to quit. Any bullying like that is retarded and don't belong in the game anymore. Too few of us left for that!

Aggie
20th August 2018, 04:28 AM
what would you change to the game mechanics to combat this?

it sounds like you are mad at yourself for not teaching them how to war. did you teach them to only click to grow big and give you trickle and teach them to log in daily so you would get officer bonus for you?

and on a side note, has your alliance ever approved anyone? if so why? does your alliance have a bf policy which you follow faithfully?

It sounds like you are enjoying people leaving the game... If so, great strategy bro :worship2: Hope you will have fun playing this game all alone with your trolling friends. :frusty:
How in earth can you war 'back' if all you see is: Your opponent has already suffered heavy losses today, and his sentry force is on full alert. Your sabotage will not succeed until they let their guard down.?
Raiding perhaps? Raiding small/medium big players who are undead/elves is useless.

lordkill
20th August 2018, 05:25 AM
Not Relentless sabs I hope, you probably ment FoD sabs? We have no control on what they are doing.
As for Relentless we usually dont sab for no reason and if you ask for sabs to stop they should. If not ask someone else. We certainly do not want players to quit. Any bullying like that is retarded and don't belong in the game anymore. Too few of us left for that!

Yes, FoD sabs. I mean relentless as in never ending sabs from FoD.

MFnBonsai
20th August 2018, 06:02 AM
This is not a war thread or an alliance thread.... This thread is about working out how to balance the power in KoC.... Keep the politics and rubbishing alliances out of it or I will close the thread....

Now by balance the power what I see is....

-Players complained that sabotage was too weak.... so we increased sabotage maybe a lil extreme but we wanted to see the reaction and well we had to reverse the changes somewhat so we are almost back to where we were originally although now less people can sabb a target....

-All accounts basically can lose the same %.... is it fair that large accounts can lose more than small accounts well that's debatable....

-Masses can hurt due to weapon damage.... it is set the same to all accounts regardless of size....

There is probably more but I just wanted to get this thread somewhat back on track....

Let me say this though.... No account should be unhittable or unsabbable in this game.... Big/medium/small all players tend to spend the same amount of time on the game it just finding the balance to make it fun for all....

krieper
20th August 2018, 06:37 AM
This is not a war thread or an alliance thread.... This thread is about working out how to balance the power in KoC.... Keep the politics and rubbishing alliances out of it or I will close the thread....

Now by balance the power what I see is....

-Players complained that sabotage was too weak.... so we increased sabotage maybe a lil extreme but we wanted to see the reaction and well we had to reverse the changes somewhat so we are almost back to where we were originally although now less people can sabb a target....

-All accounts basically can lose the same %.... is it fair that large accounts can lose more than small accounts well that's debatable....

-Masses can hurt due to weapon damage.... it is set the same to all accounts regardless of size....

There is probably more but I just wanted to get this thread somewhat back on track....

Let me say this though.... No account should be unhittable or unsabbable in this game.... Big/medium/small all players tend to spend the same amount of time on the game it just finding the balance to make it fun for all....

Raiding is also more powerful for rogues, due to more turns available, as sabs don't cost any.

The problem with this issue is that two things are linked together: rogues (individual players going for maximum damage) and wars (alliances going head-to-head)

Every change you make effects both, so it's needed to think everything through.

My problem with rogues atm is that they can inflict too much damage for what/who they are. Sabtotals can be very high, due to their stats are all poured into spy, and they are usually elves. Without sabturns, and the fact that those turns can now be used to slay and keep the spy high, there virtually is no limit on sabbing. Add to that that the damage they inflict by raiding, due to the 1/100 ratio and the equal damages no matter the SA of the opponent, the roguelike playstyle at this moment in time is very powerful. It's also impossible to do something against it, due to a sabcap (meant to protect players from being zero'd, but I think this overshoots it's purpose for players that inflict this much damage themselves) and due to the fact that soldiers and generated income are not usually the rogue's main source of gold. Slaying fits way more with this playstyle, as there is enough gold available to shithit with a lot of turns.

Warring is also pretty boring if you ask me: only 2 types of accounts generally survive the carnage of monthlong wars: big accounts that have less than 5 sabbers and low AAT raiders. Everyone in between is better off turking or selling their value to the big accounts. Why is this? Because wars tend to last a long time and the "winner" usually isn't the one inflicting the highest % of damage, but the one that has the least to lose. The one that cries the least and waits for a surrender the longest, wins. This isn't how wars are won in real life or in most wargames. Generally, there are 2 ways to win a war: destroy the enemy or have him surrender. The only way you win in KoC is by accepting surrender. Yet that is the problem... you may have destroyed the enemy, did all the possible damage that you can possobly inflict... you'll end up with an enemy that has nothing to lose by surrendering and accounts that can take advantage of the same mechanics I described above that benefit rogues.

My suggestion would be that you tackle both of these problems at once. I would do that by making player vs player and alliance vs alliance interaction limited in time.

How? By creating the game mechanic of "war". A button you press on the statpage or alliancepage of your opponent that opens up war-actions on those opponents. If you haven't declared war on someone or an alliance, you can't sabotage or raid, only attack and recon. If you declare war, you can sab or raid, but for a limited time (15 or 30 days?). You can add a surrender feature, where the wars ends sooner if the other side accepts the surrender. This would also open up the possibility for warrankings.

I know this would dramatically alter how KoC is played, as it would be seen as limiting for some players. I wouldn't put any real limit on the number of people or alliances you can declare war upon, but atleast you'd get clarity: Ok, that person/alliance declared war on me, I will be affected, but it will stop i x days, or sooner if i surrender and it's accepted.

Right now, people tend to quit, as they either don't know why they lose stuff, or because they lost a lot over a long period of time with no end in sight.

I think this feature would be pretty awesome, for rankers and the traditional alliances (clarity, clear winners in war or at least a reasonable end) and roguelike players and waralliances (they can war a lot, win them, have a ranking to show for it).

MFnBonsai
20th August 2018, 07:07 AM
My suggestion would be that you tackle both of these problems at once. I would do that by making player vs player and alliance vs alliance interaction limited in time.

How? By creating the game mechanic of "war". A button you press on the statpage or alliancepage of your opponent that opens up war-actions on those opponents. If you haven't declared war on someone or an alliance, you can't sabotage or raid, only attack and recon. If you declare war, you can sab or raid, but for a limited time (15 or 30 days?). You can add a surrender feature, where the wars ends sooner if the other side accepts the surrender. This would also open up the possibility for warrankings.

I know this would dramatically alter how KoC is played, as it would be seen as limiting for some players. I wouldn't put any real limit on the number of people or alliances you can declare war upon, but atleast you'd get clarity: Ok, that person/alliance declared war on me, I will be affected, but it will stop i x days, or sooner if i surrender and it's accepted.

Right now, people tend to quit, as they either don't know why they lose stuff, or because they lost a lot over a long period of time with no end in sight.

I think this feature would be pretty awesome, for rankers and the traditional alliances (clarity, clear winners in war or at least a reasonable end) and roguelike players and waralliances (they can war a lot, win them, have a ranking to show for it).

Umm no I do not want to go down that path at all.... I think I have mentioned this before when someone has suggested something like it.... who is to determine who is at war with who?? does the opponents get to decide if they want to war back?? who would even use such a function??

supersqueeze
20th August 2018, 09:39 AM
Has the idea of diminishing returns been discussed? Something like for every subsequent sab over the current limit the amount of weapons that can be sabbed decreases and it begins to require more and more turns?

This way if an entire alliance is being harassed they can go after an individual account. Also, for warring alliances it may be interesting to see the balance and coordination required to wait for the DRs to fall off before continuing to sab or pushing accounts on the line of being able to sab them.

Jankster
20th August 2018, 10:14 AM
Game mecanic totally overpowered now. I get a nice repair from 2 raiders(which are maxed) 850 million repair, on top of that I get sabbed by 1 sabber for 4,4 billion(which are maxed)...
Game not playable with any DA just now.
So heres my idea:
Raids:
Only 5 raids per day and with less damage per raid.
Sabotage:
Make sentry unsabable. Would make sentry stronger again and sabbers have to follow up in spies.
Back to 2 sabs per 24 hours. Would mean a singel sabber can only sab Ĺ the amount.

bloodpirate
20th August 2018, 10:43 AM
what i hear is people want to be able to destroy rogues, but not be damaged themselves. basically, big alliances can do more damage to a single player than that player can do to each member in their alliance. one person wants to do away with sabbing and raiding. PLEASE. this is a beta age, for testing new ideas. test how to combat rogues, instead of just complaining about them. how will anyone know how to play the new era without experimenting in the beta? our forum is full of experimented ideas, and what works and what doesn't work, how to do numerous things to numerous sized accounts of each playing style. etc. etc. we are ready for the new era. will have to fine tune ideas once we see what changes it will bring. are all the big alliances going to play the same way they have the last 10 years?

Jankster
20th August 2018, 11:10 AM
what i hear is people want to be able to destroy rogues, but not be damaged themselves. basically, big alliances can do more damage to a single player than that player can do to each member in their alliance. one person wants to do away with sabbing and raiding. PLEASE. this is a beta age, for testing new ideas. test how to combat rogues, instead of just complaining about them. how will anyone know how to play the new era without experimenting in the beta? our forum is full of experimented ideas, and what works and what doesn't work, how to do numerous things to numerous sized accounts of each playing style. etc. etc. we are ready for the new era. will have to fine tune ideas once we see what changes it will bring. are all the big alliances going to play the same way they have the last 10 years?

Proberly Ĺ of them wont play BP, sab and raids are overpowered exstremely. <No point in playing much, just have some SA and raid and only to keep in touch with old friends. How to combat low ATT rogue raiders, Cant be done BP, its impossibel!!! As it is now, the only damage done will be at the attacked. If the problem with rogue raiders and sabbers isnt fixed, Im not ready to play the first ERA(Sry I dunno where your "we" came from, really many said: Its enough)

bloodpirate
20th August 2018, 11:27 AM
we won't be going rouge next era unless forced too .. heck, we wouldn't have gone rogue this age unless forced too. i say blame lame bf policies and bully alliance bf mods and leaders for rogues. most players don't want to become rouges, don't plan on being rogues, but are forced there by big alliances. jankster, you know the game as well as i do. there must be a way to stop rogues, we had dozens of them from almost week one this age, against us. we got tired of them, especially when we realized what alliances sent them. we want to be able to combat rogues as much as anyone else. next era will probably be the same. alliances will want revenge, they will get players to rogue us. we won't go a week without some rogues. we want to start the new era with a clean slate. will that happen? i doubt it, but will have to wait and see, only a couple weeks till the new era. enjoy the show till then.

Brandonito
20th August 2018, 11:43 AM
Why are you sabbing solo players if "bully bfmods" and "rogue leaders" and "lame bfpolicies" are to blame? What did they ever do to you? How does that fit in to the agenda?

Mielinski
20th August 2018, 11:51 AM
we won't be going rouge next era unless forced too .. heck, we wouldn't have gone rogue this age unless forced too. i say blame lame bf policies and bully alliance bf mods and leaders for rogues. most players don't want to become rouges, don't plan on being rogues, but are forced there by big alliances. jankster, you know the game as well as i do. there must be a way to stop rogues, we had dozens of them from almost week one this age, against us. we got tired of them, especially when we realized what alliances sent them. we want to be able to combat rogues as much as anyone else. next era will probably be the same. alliances will want revenge, they will get players to rogue us. we won't go a week without some rogues. we want to start the new era with a clean slate. will that happen? i doubt it, but will have to wait and see, only a couple weeks till the new era. enjoy the show till then.

Clean slate? Show? You must be proud sabbing all those solo players. They get what they deserve because they shouldn't have forced you? Keep hiding behing your small untouchable account.

Weak.

Stes_The_Destroyer
20th August 2018, 12:36 PM
clean slate lol, you have ruined lots of peoples accounts for no reason, you have probably cost 30 or more players to leave or not play next age, you will have made so many enemies, i was peaceful this age, you have ruined it for me, my sole aim next age is just to sab and farm you guys and just be a little pain in the arse, im sure you have made many people think the same now. but hey ho its a game.

srry for going off topic bon, that clean slate bothered me lol

krieper
20th August 2018, 03:38 PM
Umm no I do not want to go down that path at all.... I think I have mentioned this before when someone has suggested something like it.... who is to determine who is at war with who?? does the opponents get to decide if they want to war back?? who would even use such a function??

It's pretty much the same as it is now. Just instead of declaring on GUA, you declare ingame. You only need 1 side for a war, that's how it is now too.

The only thing different about this is that it makes sabbing and raiding possible when at war, and (if you want to do such a thing) impossible outside of war.

Individual players can still go rogue, alliances can still declare, war, ... but with the important limit of time. If you start a war, it ends in x amount of days. You could even make this flexible, but with a minimum and maximum amount of days.

It's out of the box, I know, but if we always keep doing the same things over and over, people get inevitably bored and leave :-) it's just an idea, if you don't like it, or like aspects of it, or think it's impossible to implement, ... that's all good... it's your game, it's your call.

kaoz
20th August 2018, 04:01 PM
Individual players can still go rogue, alliances can still declare, war, ... but with the important limit of time. If you start a war, it ends in x amount of days. You could even make this flexible, but with a minimum and maximum amount of days.


Just out of interest, have you ever done a full war sabbing and raiding without Turking?

A very bad idea for sure but I understand such arrangements suits "you" nicely.

krieper
20th August 2018, 07:12 PM
Just out of interest, have you ever done a full war sabbing and raiding without Turking?

A very bad idea for sure but I understand such arrangements suits "you" nicely.

I have yes, but it gets pretty boring pretty fast.

Not everyone likes doing the same shit everyday without getting a step further :-)

MFnBonsai
21st August 2018, 01:09 AM
I have yes, but it gets pretty boring pretty fast.

Not everyone likes doing the same shit everyday without getting a step further :-)

So it gets pretty boring??? Doing the same shit everyday??? What about age after age??? Pretty sure a lot of people quit because the game got boring....

I can sure say 1 thing is for sure.... Its not often I agree with bp on things.... maybe one or two things he has said on here this age.... but I do agree with what he posted a couple posts ago....

THIS IS A BETA.... players should have tested mechanics as they were being changed.... should have tried to adapt to what was being done.... worked out ways to make the game work for them.... If you didnt and you dont like what comes in the new age and you quit then sorry but not sorry.... the game was losing players anyway and really if players are going to quit next age without even giving the game a go then I wish you all well....

We have tried to balance things for next age but I am not going to force people to play.... I do hope that those that have stuck by the game and the community over the years do stay to see where I am trying to take the game.... ash/endtime and myself have looked at what we can do to balance the game while changing it up enough that it brings some life back into it.... but if you think it will be like previous ages it wont....

I have heard a lot of talk and bitching and complaining that I am changing the game to suit lone/small players and wipe out rankers/mains from the game.... Nothing could be further from the truth although I do believe that rankers/mains have had it easy over the ages and have sat pretty bar the occasional rogue in previous ages.... why not wait and see what we have put in place then you can all decide if the game is good for you but threatening to quit because you dont get your way WILL NOT make me change things just to suit those doing so....

Aggie
21st August 2018, 04:29 AM
Pretty sure a lot of people quit because the game got boring....

You are probably right, so thanks for trying to give this game a new impulse.
But I'm pretty sure IF things stay the way they are a lot will quit too. And a lot of people took the time to find GUA and said it already.
Never saw individuals in the past complaining on GUA that they were bullied by big alliances and their BF policies. Not saying they didn't complain, just saying they didn't find their way to GUA.


THIS IS A BETA.... players should have tested mechanics as they were being changed.... If you didnt and you dont like what comes in the new age and you quit then sorry but not sorry

That's too easy bon. Most of the long time players will try the new age out and you know it. It's the casual player that will quit over game mechanics that don't suit them. And afaik that's just the player you wanted to keep playing?
People who played this BETA and got frustrated about being sabbed and can't do a thing back to those bullies (yes, that's what they are by sabbing small harmless players without a reason just like the so called big alliances did with their stupid BF policies) probably already quit or quit not far into the new age/era.


We have tried to balance things for next age but I am not going to force people to play.... I do hope that those that have stuck by the game and the community over the years do stay to see where I am trying to take the game.... ash/endtime and myself have looked at what we can do to balance the game while changing it up enough that it brings some life back into it.... but if you think it will be like previous ages it wont....

Most of the people who were still playing the game over these past years probably did it because of the way the game was being played. People who seriously got bored and didn't like it anymore quit along those years.
Maybe you should send all those people an email with the announcement that the game took some major changes and they are very welcome to try the 'new' KOC. That probably would attract some old players who quit due the fact the game was boring and predictable.
Changing the game for the sake of changing it isn't in the best interest for the people who already were here afaik. Let alone a small group of players ofcourse.


I have heard a lot of talk and bitching and complaining that I am changing the game to suit lone/small players and wipe out rankers/mains from the game.... Nothing could be further from the truth although I do believe that rankers/mains have had it easy over the ages and have sat pretty bar the occasional rogue in previous ages.... why not wait and see what we have put in place then you can all decide if the game is good for you but threatening to quit because you dont get your way WILL NOT make me change things just to suit those doing so....

I agree with you on that one. Just try out the new age/era and decide after that if the game still is attractive enough for you to keep playing it. I seriously hope the changes you made will attract new players, but to be fair, I'm not quite sure.

krieper
21st August 2018, 05:14 AM
So it gets pretty boring??? Doing the same shit everyday??? What about age after age??? Pretty sure a lot of people quit because the game got boring....

I can sure say 1 thing is for sure.... Its not often I agree with bp on things.... maybe one or two things he has said on here this age.... but I do agree with what he posted a couple posts ago....

THIS IS A BETA.... players should have tested mechanics as they were being changed.... should have tried to adapt to what was being done.... worked out ways to make the game work for them.... If you didnt and you dont like what comes in the new age and you quit then sorry but not sorry.... the game was losing players anyway and really if players are going to quit next age without even giving the game a go then I wish you all well....

We have tried to balance things for next age but I am not going to force people to play.... I do hope that those that have stuck by the game and the community over the years do stay to see where I am trying to take the game.... ash/endtime and myself have looked at what we can do to balance the game while changing it up enough that it brings some life back into it.... but if you think it will be like previous ages it wont....

I have heard a lot of talk and bitching and complaining that I am changing the game to suit lone/small players and wipe out rankers/mains from the game.... Nothing could be further from the truth although I do believe that rankers/mains have had it easy over the ages and have sat pretty bar the occasional rogue in previous ages.... why not wait and see what we have put in place then you can all decide if the game is good for you but threatening to quit because you dont get your way WILL NOT make me change things just to suit those doing so....

Not sure where you read that I, or anyone else for that matter, doesn't want changes. In fact, I suggested a bigger change than anything that has currently changed.

Why do I suggest it? Because I try to help you make this game more attractive.

Am I bitching or crying? I'm not invested in this beta, so why would I care? I do agree a lot of people are complaining. And I can see where they are coming from. In the past ages, there wasn't an active admin, but there were tested mechanics in place that worked for 6-8 months ages. Right now, the changes made caused a change of balance, in the direction of sabbing, raiding and attacking. You deemed that necessary, and in some parts I follow you. But those changes have consequences. One of them is that some players who stuck around during those long and messed up ages don't see the changes they want. It's ofc impossible to please everyone, so that is inevitable. On top of that, it so happens that the changes made also caused a side-effect, by decreasing the amount of sabbers on someone, you also increase the number of people that get frustrated they can't fight back. That frustrates EVERYONE. No bigger injustice than being fucked over and not being able to do something about it.

You created this thread to see if there were more than 5 people complaining about it. Well, I think at this point EVERYONE is complaining about it, except those 5 rogues that can do their thing without consequences.

Does that mean you have to listen? Ofcourse not. You do as you think is best, and I don't think anyone blames you for it. Nor should they. Having an admin that cares is what this game needed. But your goals were unclear to me, I thought you wanted to get a bigger playerbase. Seems you just want changes and those that don't like it can fuck off... fair enough.

I'll play next age, but I predict that with these gamedynamics, you'll end up with nothing but rogues and rankers that are frustrated. People who are frustrated tend to be less invested and eventually quit. You say people need to figure out how to play with these changes... well, I think people have figured it out. The best way to play with these changes is as a rogue, as other playstyles are effected too much if someone rogues on them.

Does that mean this will happen? No. You planned some changes to begin next age, so we'll have to wait and see. And people usually are inventive enough to cope with shitty circumstances, so I'm sure some will thrive and will try to become kings of chaos, which i guess is the point of this game after all.

MFnBonsai
21st August 2018, 06:04 AM
Does that mean you have to listen? Ofcourse not. You do as you think is best, and I don't think anyone blames you for it. Nor should they. Having an admin that cares is what this game needed. But your goals were unclear to me, I thought you wanted to get a bigger playerbase. Seems you just want changes and those that don't like it can fuck off... fair enough.

I'll play next age, but I predict that with these gamedynamics, you'll end up with nothing but rogues and rankers that are frustrated. People who are frustrated tend to be less invested and eventually quit. You say people need to figure out how to play with these changes... well, I think people have figured it out. The best way to play with these changes is as a rogue, as other playstyles are effected too much if someone rogues on them.

Does that mean this will happen? No. You planned some changes to begin next age, so we'll have to wait and see. And people usually are inventive enough to cope with shitty circumstances, so I'm sure some will thrive and will try to become kings of chaos, which i guess is the point of this game after all.

Maybe you misread but telling people that dont like it to fukk off was not my intention.... the issue i have is that everyone expects things to go their way and that is not why i took the game over.... If i wanted to keep people happy or those still playing happy i would have left the game alone and just kept it running the way it was.... with the same mechanics and the same people on top age after age.... till the game got down to only those that are here for their alliances and no one else....

Instead i am trying to bring life into the game.... set up a beta where changes happened to see the working of such changes and have taken into account the issues with those changes and think that ash/endtime and myself have come up with a way to balance such changes.... if players dont like it then that is their decision but im not going to make changes in a real age.... and as stated the age will only run for 4 months to see how the changes work.... if they dont work then there will be more changes in the next age....

but thats the beauty of owning the game now.... no age will stay the same.... ages wont run for longer than 6 months.... new additions will be added every age.... game mechs that are deemed not great in a previous age wont be in the next.... so as the new owner and ash/endtime as the new admin we have the ability to log and see what works and what doesnt.... we can change things up at any time but unless it drastically hurts the game we would prefer to let each age run as it does.... this beta was just to test things out and give players a chance to adapt to changes....

Ofcourse time will tell when the new age is underway and we see what those changes bring but just posting here saying this sucks that sucks not gonna play if it continues really doesnt help us at all it just shows us that you are not willing to work with what we have planned....

We cant please everyone and dont intend to make the game easy for one playstyle we are trying to make sure that all playstyles are covered here....

Vredesbyrd
21st August 2018, 06:41 AM
So it gets pretty boring??? Doing the same shit everyday??? What about age after age??? Pretty sure a lot of people quit because the game got boring....

I can sure say 1 thing is for sure.... Its not often I agree with bp on things.... maybe one or two things he has said on here this age.... but I do agree with what he posted a couple posts ago....

THIS IS A BETA.... players should have tested mechanics as they were being changed.... should have tried to adapt to what was being done.... worked out ways to make the game work for them.... If you didnt and you dont like what comes in the new age and you quit then sorry but not sorry.... the game was losing players anyway and really if players are going to quit next age without even giving the game a go then I wish you all well....

We have tried to balance things for next age but I am not going to force people to play.... I do hope that those that have stuck by the game and the community over the years do stay to see where I am trying to take the game.... ash/endtime and myself have looked at what we can do to balance the game while changing it up enough that it brings some life back into it.... but if you think it will be like previous ages it wont....

I have heard a lot of talk and bitching and complaining that I am changing the game to suit lone/small players and wipe out rankers/mains from the game.... Nothing could be further from the truth although I do believe that rankers/mains have had it easy over the ages and have sat pretty bar the occasional rogue in previous ages.... why not wait and see what we have put in place then you can all decide if the game is good for you but threatening to quit because you dont get your way WILL NOT make me change things just to suit those doing so....


yeah thats all well and great and many things have been said all age so its been happening and then some things come up closer to the age end like the fact that noobs can hurt the leet.
That last part was just to get the attention.
My point from the KOC chat that got lost in others "spam":

1. Sa attack Da. Sa beats da = kills da soldeirs/mers and coverts = Good!
2. Sa attack Da but gets defended = Kills Da soldiers/mercs + coverts = Bad! as this creates an unfair situation where someone with a 30 min old account can hurt someone that has spend all age building up.
3. Sa attack Da but gets defended = kills Da soldeirs/mercs , but not coverts = Good!


You should not be able to hurt someone that has given a lot of effort into the game unless you also have given some effort. You should not be able to hurt someone that has been build up by an alliance in clicks and sells unless you have done it yourself. In the first ages you could get massed and get DA destroyed but now you can basically have an account with no stats whatsoever (for various reasons) mass/raid the big mains and kill off their coverts and destroying their spy and sentry stat. Seems pretty unfair to me. I dont care when the old admins changed it to this but I hope its looked into in the future.

krieper
21st August 2018, 06:58 AM
Maybe you misread but telling people that dont like it to fukk off was not my intention.... the issue i have is that everyone expects things to go their way and that is not why i took the game over.... If i wanted to keep people happy or those still playing happy i would have left the game alone and just kept it running the way it was.... with the same mechanics and the same people on top age after age.... till the game got down to only those that are here for their alliances and no one else....

Instead i am trying to bring life into the game.... set up a beta where changes happened to see the working of such changes and have taken into account the issues with those changes and think that ash/endtime and myself have come up with a way to balance such changes.... if players dont like it then that is their decision but im not going to make changes in a real age.... and as stated the age will only run for 4 months to see how the changes work.... if they dont work then there will be more changes in the next age....

but thats the beauty of owning the game now.... no age will stay the same.... ages wont run for longer than 6 months.... new additions will be added every age.... game mechs that are deemed not great in a previous age wont be in the next.... so as the new owner and ash/endtime as the new admin we have the ability to log and see what works and what doesnt.... we can change things up at any time but unless it drastically hurts the game we would prefer to let each age run as it does.... this beta was just to test things out and give players a chance to adapt to changes....

Ofcourse time will tell when the new age is underway and we see what those changes bring but just posting here saying this sucks that sucks not gonna play if it continues really doesnt help us at all it just shows us that you are not willing to work with what we have planned....

We cant please everyone and dont intend to make the game easy for one playstyle we are trying to make sure that all playstyles are covered here....

I guess you misread, I'm not saying this sucks, that sucks, I'm saying this mechanic has this side-effect and I suggest it works differently, this is how you can do it, but it's your game, you decide :)

Nor did I say I'm not going to play if it continues. I said that I think many people will get discouraged and stop playing, and since I'm playing next age, that would be a pity.


Anyway, enough with this he said, she said :)

I think the point I made is clear: I would change how some mechanics work, as it causes a lot of people to be powerless right now. Which in return causes frustration, which then causes people to quit.


Looking forward to next age, curious what will (not) be added, and curious how it all plays out. If you need more suggestions, I'll try to chip in.

Lady_Rowan
21st August 2018, 08:18 AM
I think the point I made is clear: I would change how some mechanics work, as it causes a lot of people to be powerless right now. Which in return causes frustration, which then causes people to quit.


I think Bon is hoping the frustration will turn into some mad max fight where we all turn into rogues as ofc rogues are cool ^^

Tanouye
21st August 2018, 08:50 AM
THIS IS A BETA.... players should have tested mechanics as they were being changed.... should have tried to adapt to what was being done.... worked out ways to make the game work for them.... If you didnt and you dont like what comes in the new age and you quit then sorry but not sorry.... the game was losing players anyway and really if players are going to quit next age without even giving the game a go then I wish you all well....

We did, everyone sold their value up chain so their gold didn't go to waste and held just enough SA to successfully raid people. Shockingly it was considerably less interactive and fun than managing a mid account has been in the past, who would have ever guessed that removing the need for medium sized accounts would make the game less fun for a lot of players!?


We have tried to balance things for next age but I am not going to force people to play.... I do hope that those that have stuck by the game and the community over the years do stay to see where I am trying to take the game.... ash/endtime and myself have looked at what we can do to balance the game while changing it up enough that it brings some life back into it.... but if you think it will be like previous ages it wont....

I have heard a lot of talk and bitching and complaining that I am changing the game to suit lone/small players and wipe out rankers/mains from the game.... Nothing could be further from the truth although I do believe that rankers/mains have had it easy over the ages and have sat pretty bar the occasional rogue in previous ages.... why not wait and see what we have put in place then you can all decide if the game is good for you but threatening to quit because you dont get your way WILL NOT make me change things just to suit those doing so....

Solo players are probably worse off than they've ever been, when was the last time you remember people chaining solo players for fun? How does that attract new players to the game again? Wiping out rankers might be more accurate though, when you design the game around allowing rogue chains to grief everyone, you will eventually alienate your majority ranker playerbase.

People aren't "threatening" you with quitting, they're just pointing out that with the current changes they don't have any interest in continuing to play the game. It's called criticism, and you don't seem to handle it very well :(


Maybe you misread but telling people that dont like it to fukk off was not my intention.... the issue i have is that everyone expects things to go their way and that is not why i took the game over.... If i wanted to keep people happy or those still playing happy i would have left the game alone and just kept it running the way it was.... with the same mechanics and the same people on top age after age.... till the game got down to only those that are here for their alliances and no one else....

I don't think everyone expects things to go their way, I think a lot of people are just confused because there seems to be a large disconnect between your stated goals of things like "trying to grow the playerbase" in comparison to the changes that have been implemented. So far the changes have been for a small % of your current playerbase, and the changes have damaged the accounts of solo players far worse than what ďbf policiesĒ ever did (not that anyone was approving new players outside of chains with no BF policies).


Instead i am trying to bring life into the game.... set up a beta where changes happened to see the working of such changes and have taken into account the issues with those changes and think that ash/endtime and myself have come up with a way to balance such changes.... if players dont like it then that is their decision but im not going to make changes in a real age.... and as stated the age will only run for 4 months to see how the changes work.... if they dont work then there will be more changes in the next age....

but thats the beauty of owning the game now.... no age will stay the same.... ages wont run for longer than 6 months.... new additions will be added every age.... game mechs that are deemed not great in a previous age wont be in the next.... so as the new owner and ash/endtime as the new admin we have the ability to log and see what works and what doesnt.... we can change things up at any time but unless it drastically hurts the game we would prefer to let each age run as it does.... this beta was just to test things out and give players a chance to adapt to changes....

You really just need a direction for the game. You don't need a whole age to figure out how a change is going to affect the game Ė if you really donít know how a change like making sabs not cost turns is going to change the game, just ask any experienced player and they'll tell you. Right now I canít tell if your changes donít align with your stated goals because you donít understand the game, or if you just want griefing to be really strong because itís what you enjoyed doing when you played but are afraid you will turn more people away from the game if you openly say that.


Of course time will tell when the new age is underway and we see what those changes bring but just posting here saying this sucks that sucks not gonna play if it continues really doesn't help us at all it just shows us that you are not willing to work with what we have planned....

People are going to quit if they don't find the game fun anymore, of course they aren't going to "work with you" no matter what. There are thousands of other games out there to play, they aren't obligated to play one they don't enjoy.


We cant please everyone and dont intend to make the game easy for one playstyle we are trying to make sure that all playstyles are covered here....

This is another point where there seems to be a disconnect between your stated goals and the actual changes to the game. In previous ages you had to balance your stats to accomplish whatever you were trying to do, full sentry, full spy, full SA, a mix of 2 stats as a mid account - there were quite a few viable strategies. Now the strategy of holding enough SA to successfully hit all enemies and selling the rest of your value up chain to your bigs (who can now effectively take unlimited amounts of sells now with no consequence since attacks give 2 exp per turn and you don't have to save turns for sabs anymore) is far stronger than anything else, sentry/spy/da can pretty much all be ignored unless you're a big account. Maybe i'm missing something, but I don't see how these changes added more playstyles to the game?

MFnBonsai
21st August 2018, 09:54 AM
I think Bon is hoping the frustration will turn into some mad max fight where we all turn into rogues as ofc rogues are cool ^^

Maybe this age was just a dream or nightmare and everyone will wake up in 11 days and the new age will be Age 24 and aman will once again be in control of the game ;)

@Tanouye I have read your post and although I could have a comeback for every quote you quoted I will leave it at this.... This was a beta that needed to happen in my eyes to see what features are good for the game and what isnt.... Sometimes the game needs a shakeup rather than the same age everyone knows and loves to play.... maybe in this case I was wrong.... Lets hope what I posted above is true I guess ;).... if not we will just have to see what is instore for the new age....

Flaming Knights
21st August 2018, 10:17 AM
I keep seeing these rogues say they are sabbing because of BF policies. Why are you sabbing solo players? I have rogues from FoD, Lacn, and DEMK sabbing me. Ive played solo all age and been approved by no alliances during the entire age. I'm a slayer account with low-mid tbg, so most of my account value has been from slaying all age, tbg doesnt even come close to replace sab losses.

I stated this earlier but again, i don't mind my account getting wrecked if i can sab you back. Before you tell me to go raid them, think of this, why should i spend my turns and merc/repair $$$ to do minimal damage when you sabbed me at no cost. This just encourages bad play, since i'm maxed i could just go farm every alliance and tell them to deal with it or to blame their rogues. They can't sab me for low hits. It's a snowball effect once everyone adopts that mentality.

The best suggestions i've seen so far is to make sentry not sabbable or go back to having sabs cost turns. Option B, not sure how it would be implemented, is if you have been sabbed, you have 0 repair costs when retalling with raids.

RMFz-
21st August 2018, 11:17 AM
We did, everyone sold their value up chain so their gold didn't go to waste and held just enough SA to successfully raid people. Shockingly it was considerably less interactive and fun than managing a mid account has been in the past, who would have ever guessed that removing the need for medium sized accounts would make the game less fun for a lot of players!?



Solo players are probably worse off than they've ever been, when was the last time you remember people chaining solo players for fun? How does that attract new players to the game again? Wiping out rankers might be more accurate though, when you design the game around allowing rogue chains to grief everyone, you will eventually alienate your majority ranker playerbase.

People aren't "threatening" you with quitting, they're just pointing out that with the current changes they don't have any interest in continuing to play the game. It's called criticism, and you don't seem to handle it very well :(



I don't think everyone expects things to go their way, I think a lot of people are just confused because there seems to be a large disconnect between your stated goals of things like "trying to grow the playerbase" in comparison to the changes that have been implemented. So far the changes have been for a small % of your current playerbase, and the changes have damaged the accounts of solo players far worse than what “bf policies” ever did (not that anyone was approving new players outside of chains with no BF policies).



You really just need a direction for the game. You don't need a whole age to figure out how a change is going to affect the game – if you really don’t know how a change like making sabs not cost turns is going to change the game, just ask any experienced player and they'll tell you. Right now I can’t tell if your changes don’t align with your stated goals because you don’t understand the game, or if you just want griefing to be really strong because it’s what you enjoyed doing when you played but are afraid you will turn more people away from the game if you openly say that.



People are going to quit if they don't find the game fun anymore, of course they aren't going to "work with you" no matter what. There are thousands of other games out there to play, they aren't obligated to play one they don't enjoy.



This is another point where there seems to be a disconnect between your stated goals and the actual changes to the game. In previous ages you had to balance your stats to accomplish whatever you were trying to do, full sentry, full spy, full SA, a mix of 2 stats as a mid account - there were quite a few viable strategies. Now the strategy of holding enough SA to successfully hit all enemies and selling the rest of your value up chain to your bigs (who can now effectively take unlimited amounts of sells now with no consequence since attacks give 2 exp per turn and you don't have to save turns for sabs anymore) is far stronger than anything else, sentry/spy/da can pretty much all be ignored unless you're a big account. Maybe i'm missing something, but I don't see how these changes added more playstyles to the game?

I think Bon has heard all of this and has probably made changes to remedy most of this. He's just not revealing it to you yet. Don't worry, you will get what you want and rogues will be irrelevant again.

Lancelotnl
21st August 2018, 02:07 PM
I think Bon has heard all of this and has probably made changes to remedy most of this. He's just not revealing it to you yet. Don't worry, you will get what you want and rogues will be irrelevant again.

Yes, you are probably right. I am curious for next Era

krieper
22nd August 2018, 07:33 AM
Yes, you are probably right. I am curious for next Era

So say we all.